














,4 a 



<> 




\> - * * o - ^> 






V ^K* v 




"^ .C. - V. 



V 









** ^ 



o< O, 



V r 






"n ^. 









V* 








,4- a 



V* 



« 






V *- > * " r "^ \> V ^ » • , 9fe. ■' ' * 




TABLE OF FOUR SIMILAR ALPHABETS. 
1 Hebrew. 2 Greek. 3 Arabic. 4 Old Irish. 

shewing the 16 primitive letters, and the later compounded and supplementary 
letters, together with the corresponding English letters, and 
their numeral values. 



,_, ©* CO tJI \o so fc- oo o o o © o o o © — o o © © 







'■ajs«aa refill 1 1 ■•i-s^b;* 



riCSCO^iftCOfr-QC©©©©©©©©© ©©©©©©©© 

-4 « CO ^ lO CO N O0 ©©©©©©©© 

i— ♦crtco^ocot^.ao 

ta - 1 -I h^? i| s ,-J § I.-, -s 5 



HCJCOTftiflCDNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
« H0l?3^»OC0t*Q0a»O 

■s *- 

3 .2 

HdWTfvOCD 0©©0 ©O OgO rj 

H«COrJOO t»oo © © © £ 

^3 

sst^lti^ i^^-i^ ^1 -8-1 

^ 2 &,£ <s S og^g S '3 EL, E w^ s 

c3 ,q WTO a? «♦=< •»-* Or-naw o j-m H «w ** ■- 



HEBREW RECORDS: 



AN 



ENQUIRY 



CONCERNING THE AGE, AUTHORSHIP, AND AUTHENTICITY 

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

BY THE REV. DR GILES. 







LONDON : 
JOHN CHAPMAN, 142 STRAND; 

PaiNTED BY THE AUTHOR, AT BAMPTON, OXPOHDSHIHE 

1850. . 



/P 



PREFACE. 

It was my first intention to send forth this book without a Preface, 
leaving it to the reader to gather from its contents, and more especially 
from the Introduction, such inferences as might fairly be drawn from 
them, as to the particular views which guided me in its composition, 
and led to its publication. It appears, however, in the judgment of a 
friend, that some persons may fall into error as to the motives which 
caused me to publish this work, and may ascribe it to a feeling of hostility 
towards a book held in universal estimation. Against the injustice of 
this charge, I should still have not deemed it necessary to protect 
myself in any other way than by silence. For, though I will not 
pretend to be ignorant that the religious character of a work must vary 
greatly in proportion to its historical tendencies, yet 1 should still have 
left this book to advocate its own doctrines, had it not been strongly 
urged that some persons may even wilfully pervert its meaning, and 
ascribe to it a tendency which its author never contemplated. To guard 
against such a possibility, I think it right to premise that this work is 
historical, and not theological. Its object is, to assign a certain value 
and antiquity to the Old Testament, — such a value indeed and such 
an antiquity as to leave it, even in my own judgment, what it has 
always been in the opinion of nine- tenths of civilized men, the most 
wonderful record of past times that the world has yet seen. The con- 
clusion which I have endeavoured to establish in this Historical Inquiry, 
so far from diminishing the value of the Old Testament, seems to me 
really to add thereto, for it substitutes certainty in the place of uncertainty, 
light for darkness, and reason for mystery, whilst it is left for those 
who pursue the subject by deducing religious doctrines from historical 
fact, to determine how far the same data may be of use as shewing the 



viii Preface. 

importance of studying the spirit rather than the letter of a code of laws, 
certainly better adapted for Jews than Christians, and more in harmony 
with the manners which prevailed in Palestine before the Christian era, 
than with the state of things which now exists in England, or, in fact, 
in any part of Europe. 

In the Appendix to this volume are given some long extracts from 
the laborious works of Prideaux and Shuckford, not on account of the 
deductions which those learned compilers have arrived at, — for 
these are often diametrically opposed to my own conclusions, — but on 
account of the full information which they furnish on their respective 
subjects. The reader is thus saved the trouble of referring to the 
original works from which those extracts are taken. 

It is also necessary to allude to an apparent omission of certain 
chapters which had at first entered into the plan of tins work — i. e. 
concerning the two books of Chronicles, the Prophetical books, 
and others, known and admitted to be of late origin. The increasing 
bulk of the volume, and the completeness with which the subject seemed 
already to have been discussed, have been the cause why these chapters 
have not been added. 

In the Introductory chapter of this work it is hinted that a similar 
inquiry has been instituted concerning the Christian Scriptures, or the 
books of the New Testament. The statement is certainly correct, but 
whether the result of the investigation will ever be made public, is a 
question that must be decided at a future time. The nature of the 
contemplated work, however it may involve Some questions similar to 
those which are here started concerning the Old Testament, will of 
course be in many respects very different ; for, whereas my object here 
has been to prove the Old Testament, in its actual form, to be a 
thousand years later than the date to which it is generally referred, yet 
no one has had the boldness to assert that the New Testament is not a 
relic of primitive Christian times. 

Bampton, Sept. 20, 1850. J. A. G. 



CONTENTS. 



Chapter 

1 Introduction ...... 1 

2 Chronology of the books which form the Hebrew canon, 

the Old Testament . * 4 

3 That the books of the Old Testament are not 39 in num- 

ber but 17 only ..... 9 

4 That the five books of Moses, with the books of Joshua, 

Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, and 
II Kings, are closely connected, and form a continuous 
narrative. . . . . .13 

5 That the Old Testament is compiled from more ancient 

works ...... 18 

1 Interruptions in the narrative . . .19 

2 Repetitions . . . . .21 

3 Earlier writings are quoted by tlie authors of the old 

Testament . . . . .25 

6 Chronological summary of Jewish history . . 29 

7 Of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament . 32 

8 Value of contemporary history . . .34 

9 Of the reputed authors of the several books in the Old 

Testament . , . . .37 

10 The claims of Moses to the authorship of the Pentateuch 

investigated. 1. Prom Tradition or Universal 
Consent . . . . ... 45 

11 Examination of the internal evidence which the Pentateuch 

is said to furnish for the belief that it was written, in 
its present form, by Moses. . . .74 

b 



Contents. 

12 The case of the Samaritan Pentateuch examined . 80 

13 That Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch, proved — 

I. from internal evidence . . .85 

1 The two tables of stone seem to have supplied the place 

of a book of the law . . . .86 

2- Manner in which Hoses is mentioned in the Pentateuch 88 

3 A booh more ancient than the Pentateuch quoted by the 

writer of the Pentateuch . . .91 

4 Anachronism concerning the enmity of the Egyptians 

towards shepherds . . . .92 

5 Anachronism, that Moses should record his own death . 93 

6 Anachronism in names, especially those of places, men- 

tioned in the Pentateuch . . .96 

1. Hebron . . page 97 6. Bethel . . . . : 101 

2. Dan 98 7. Beersheba .... 101 

3. Succoth .... 99 8. Hormah .... 102 

4. Eshcol .... 100 9. Gilead 103 

5. Bethlehem . . .100 

♦ 

7 Allusion to events that are knoicn to have happened after 

the death of Moses . . . .104 

1. The expulsion of the Canaanites. . . page 105 

2. Allusion to the kings of Israel 107 

3. The ceasing of the manna 108 

4. The sinew that was not eaten 109 

8 The^Pentateuch betrays a more advanced state of knowledge 

than prevailed in the time of Moses . . 109 



1. 


In the account of the 




6. 


Allusion to the Sidonians 


113 




four rivers 


110 


7. 


Minute account of Meribah 


113 


2. 


Ararat 


110 


8. 


Of Beer .... 


113 


3. 


Damascus and Hobah 


110 


P. 


Jericho .... 


113 


4. 


Canaan ... 


111 


10. 


Bedstead of Og. 


114 


5, 


Mention of the Ishmeelites 111 









9 Variation in the name given to the priest of Midian, 

father-in-law of Moses, and to Joshua . . 114 

10 Argument derived from, the use of the egression " unto 

this day." . . .* . . 116 

11 Allusion to the icant of a regular government. . 118 
14 Book of Joshua examined — Anachronisms and other inter- 
nil evidence shewing that it was written in a later age 119 



Contents. 



XI 



15 Book of Judges similarly examined 

16 The book of Ruth examined . 

17 First book of Samuel examined 

18 Second book of Samuel examined 

19 The two books of Kinffs examined 

o 

20 Errors, discrepancies; anachronisms &c. in the historical 

books generally, shewing that they are not contempo 
rary records 
1. Two versions of the Ten Commandments 

2 Inconsistencies concerning Abraham and Sarah 

3 Different accounts of the length of time which the Israel- 

ites sojourned in Egypt 
Discrepancies in the history of David and Saul 
Inaccuracies concerning Jacob's children 
Excessive accounts of the population of the Holy Land 
Error in the number of Solomon's officers 

8 Error in the number of talents brought from Ophir 

9 Concerning the situation of Tarshish . 

10 The Law of Moses not observed by the Israelites 

1 1 Inconsistency between Samuel's picture of a King, and 

that ascribed to Moses in Deal, xvii 

21 References to facts of which no records survive. 

22 Grammatical subtleties are a proof of a later age 

23 That the Israelites spoke Egyptian when they came out of 

Egypt, and only acquired the Hebrew or Ganaanitish 
language by a long residence in Canaan 
Note. Extract from Dr Bosioorth's work on the Origin of 
the English, Germanic and Scandinavian languages 

24 That the Chaldee language was the result of the Roman 

conquest of Judaea, and not of the Babylonish cap- 
tivity — Proved, T. from the Old Testament . 

1 Ezra and others after the captivity still wrote in Hebrew 

and not in Chaldee .... 

2 The Targums or Chaldee paraphrases are later than the 

Christian era, because not wonted until then 

3 Vowel-points and accents modem— the want of them not 

felt until after the time of Christ— L e. the 
Hebrew was still a living language at the begin- 
ing of the Christian era 



131 
134 
135 

140 
143 



144* 
145 
147 

148 
152 
155 
157 

158 
159 
159 
160 

161 
163 
169 



173 
191 

194 

194 

203 

204 



xii Contents. 

25 That the Jewish nation spoke Hebrew as late as the time 

of Christ — proved, 2ndly. from the New Testament . 209 
\ The Hebrew is expressly mentioned in the New Testament 

as being still the language of the people . 210 

2 Hebrew words are found in the New Testament ; 212 

8 Proper names of persons and places are of the same charac- 
ter as those which occur in the Old Testament 216 
4 Christ himself reads from the booh of the Old Testament 217 

26 Successive changes in the religion of the Hebrews, result- 

ing from their contact with foreign nations . . 218 

27 That the books of the Old Testament are later than the 

Babylonish Captivity . . . .235 

1. Close connexion of the narrative from Genesis to the second 

book of Kings . 235 

2. Silence concerning the mode in which the book of the Law 

was preserved during the captivity . . 236 

8 Allusion in Genesis to the Babylonish mode of building 239 

4 The expressions on this side Jordan, beyond Jordan 

examined . . . . .241 

5 The Captivity and Assyria are actually mentioned in the 

early parts of the Old Testament . . 246 

28 On the aft of writing — Its gradual developement through 

five stages. . . . . .248 

1 Mexican Picture-writing . . , .253 

2 Egyptian Hieroglyphics . . . .254 
2 Chinese Word-writing . . . .256 

4 Syllabic or Consonantal writing in use among the 

Hebrews . . . . .258 

5 Alphabetic writing, as used in Grece, and by other 

ancient and modern nations . . , 260 

Note. Extract from J)r Wall's Inquiry into the origin of 
alphabetic writing . . . . .261 

29 Alphabetic Writing unknown to the early Egyptians, and 

consequently to Moses . . . .263 

1 Positive testimony of ancient authors to a peculiar character 

of writing among the Egyptians . . 268 

2 Absence of all mention of phonetic or alphabetic legends in 

tJie writings of the aucimts . . . 276 



Contents. xiii 

3 Present appearance of the Egyptian monuments, and various 

opinions about them . . . .276 

4 Sameness of the written but difference of the spoken language 

in the various parts of Ancient Egypt . . 281 

5 The introduction of the Gree/c alphabet into the Coptic or 

later Egyptian language shews that there was no 
previous Egyptian alphabet . . . 282 

Note. Extract shewing Br Wall's opinion, that the Egyp- 
tians derived alphabetic writing from Greece . 285 

30 Style of the Old Testament the same throughout — because 

all written or compiled at the same time. Chaldaisms 
in the early parts of the bible, though not so many as 
in the later books— reason of this — Chaldee and 
Hebrew very similar. .... 287 

31 Alphabet of Cadmus — Phoenician origin of letters — Con- 

clusion ...... 295 

APPENDIX. 

1 The Samaritan Pentateuch. Prom Dean Prideaux's Connec- 

tion of Sacred and Profane History, vol. i, p. 416, 
sixth edition, 1719. . . . i 

2 Mutability of language. Prom Dr Shuckford's Connection 

of Sacred and Profane History, vol. i. p. 124, third 
edition, 1743. . . . . vi 

3 On Alphabetic Writing. From the same work, volume i, 

page 222 ...... ix 

4 On the Vowel Points. From Prideaux's Connection of the 

History of the Old and New Testament, Sixth edition, 
Part I, p. 348. . . . . . xxii 

5. On the Targums or Chaldee Paraphrases. From the same 

work, Part II, vol. ii, page 531 . . . xxxvii 



EltEATA. 

Page 24, line 8, for write read wrote. 

54, line 25, " except Jeremiah and Malachi. " This 

is not quite correct. There are other slight notices, 
as in Daniel ix, 11 : but these occur in books, known 
to have been written after the captivity. 

125, line £/, for Canaan read Egypt. 

125, lice 2. After this line, insert " The change of name 

from Jebusi to Jerusalem is again indicated at 
chap* xviii, verse 28." 

143"*, line 10, for Family read Family Bible. 

155, line 13, for Inaccuracy read Inaccuracies. 



THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. 



CHAPTER I. 

Introduction. 

The belief in a supreme Being or Beings has been found 
to exist in almost every nation of the world. I use the 
qualifying expression almost, because travellers have dis- 
covered a few tribes of savages, who seemed entirely 
unconscious of the existence of a God, or of any power 
superior to the ordinary law of nature. These exceptions, 
therefore, do not interfere with the course of our present 
argument, which, being addressed to those who are living 
in a civilized country and not to ignorant savages, may 
assume as a fact an opinion so generally and almost univer- 
sally entertained. Religion, which regulates the conduct 
of men, in their relation towards the Deity, is a term natu- 
rally varying according to the modes of belief prevalent in 
different countries. Experience also has shewn that, even 
among the same people, an exact identity of religious 
belief cannot long exist. This has been the case, even 
among the four principal religions, which, from their having 
been reduced to writing and promulgated to the world in a 
set canonical form, would, we might suppose, have saved 
the people who professed them, from this breach of unity. 
Yet we find that Jews, Christians, Brahmins and Mahome- 
tans are equally divided into sects, and disagree severally 

1 



2 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

among themselves as much as they are at variance gene- 
rally with each other. The most remarkable feature in 
this universal spirit of variance, is the fact that, whilst all 
the sects who belong to the same faith, differ in their 
application of it, as widely as the imagination can conceive, 
they all appeal to the same religious books or Scriptures, 
as favouring their own individual views, and authorising 
their own particular practice. If this be true, it becomes 
not only important, but an absolute duty, to examine with 
the most scrupulous minuteness that standard, which, 
though in such general use among mankind, is perpetually 
producing such a want of uniformity, in what so intimately 
concerns us, both as a society and as individuals, namely 
truth, about our everlasting interests, and moral practice, as 
it regards our comfort and social happiness in this present 
life. 

As I have before remarked, there are four principal 
religions, now prevalent among the civilized inhabitants of 
the earth : these are; 1. The Brahmin, 2. the Mahometan, 
3. the Christian, and 4. the Jewish. Of the three first it 
is sufficient to observe that the Brahmin — by which term, 
for want of knowing a better, I mean the religion of the 
Hindoos — is so revolting to common sense, that it would 
be a useless labour to discuss its tenets, or to balance its 
excellencies and its defects, among Europeans ; the Maho- 
metan is evidently the work of a man, making use of 
human fanaticism as his tool ; and the Christian, though 
based on the noblest object, that of ameliorating and reno- 
vating the human race, and worthy to be considered apart, 
cannot, however, occupy our attention, until we have first 
directed our enquiry toward its parent, the religion of the 
Jews ; because Christianity and Judaism are inseparably 
united ; neither can exist without the other ; or, at least,- 
they can only abstractedly exist as separate religions ; but 
in an historical point of view they are indivisible : they 
must maintain their ground or fall together : for, though 



1.] INTRODUCTION. 3 

the practical precepts of Christianity may be taught with- 
out the slightest reference to the Jews, or to the Old 
Testament, yet the doctrinal parts of the Christian scheme, 
and all that gives to it the character of a Divine revelation,, 
become destitute of meaning, until they are explained by 
the antecedents of the Jewish Scriptures, concerning the 
temptation of Eve, the fall of Adam, and his ejection 
from Paradise. 

It seems, therefore, that the Old Testament is a volume 
of the highest value to Christians, because its contents are 
essential to the existence of our own creed, to which 
the older religion of the Jews is, in fact, the precursor. 
I have, therefore, made it the subject of the following 
work, in which it is proposed to enquire into the historical 
value of the several books of the Old Testament, their 
authors, the time when they were written, the harmony, 
as well as discrepancies, wdiich exist between them, besides 
many other points which will incidentally arise, and may 
be useful in determining the Historical character of these 
Scriptures, and their value as evidences, concerning those 
accounts of the early history of the world, which are 
generally received among mankind, on their authority 
alone. 



THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. 



[chap. 



CHAPTER II. 

Chronology of the books which form the Hebrew 
canon, the old testament. 

The Old Testament, according to the English Bible, 
consists of thirty-nine books, written mostly in the Hebrew, 
but partly in a different language, called Chaldee, besides 
Apocryphal books, which exist in Greek or Latin only, 
and for that reason principally, have been considered by 
some classes of Christians, to possess less authority than 
the former, whilst by others they have been excluded 
from the Bible altogether. The names of these books are 
as follows : 



Genesis 


II. Chronicles 


Daniel 


Exodus 


Ezra 


Hosea 


Leviticus 


Nehemiah 


Joel 


Numbers 


Esther 


Amos 


Deuteronomy 


Job 


Obadiah 


Joshua 


Psalms 


Jonah 


Judges 


Proverbs 


Micah 


Ruth 


Ecclesiastes 


Nahum 


I. Samuel 


Song of Solomon 


Habakkuk 


II. Samuel 


Isaiah 


Zephaniah 


I. Kings 


Jeremiah 


Haggai 


II. Kings 


Lamentations 


Zechariah 


I. Chronicles 


Ezekiel 


Malachi 


Names of the Apocryphal books. 


I. Esdras 


Wisdom 


Story of Susanna 


II. Esdras 


Ecclesiasticus 


Bel and the Dragon 


Tobit 


Baruch containing 


Prayer of Manas. 


Judith 


the ep. of Jerem. 


I. Maccabees 


The conclusion of 


Song of the three 


II. Maccabees 



Esther children 



2.] CHRONOLOGY OF THE 39 BOOKS. 5 

It may be mentioned, as a fact of minor, but still of 
some, importance to our present subject, that these books 
are not always placed in the same order : the Greek trans- 
lation, called the Septuagint, and the Latin, called the 
Vulgate, differ in their arrangement from the Hebrew and 
English Bibles and from one another. Neither do they 
agree wholly in their contents ; for the Hebrew Bible ex- 
cludes all those books which in England are called Apocry- 
phal ; the Vulgate or Latin version admits only Tobit, 
Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, with 
the First and Second books of Maccabees : the Greek 
Bible admits the First book of Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 
Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the two books of Maccabees, 
to which is added a third book of Maccabees, not to be 
found in either the Hebrew, Latin, or English Bible. 

Let us now briefly review the contents of these books 
one after the other, principally for chronological purposes ; 
as we shall hereafter have occasion to refer to this subject, 
and such a summary will save the reader from the neces- 
sity of consulting the books themselves, except on impor- 
tant points, in the argument, which will presently be 
unfolded. 

1. Genesis. 

This book relates the history of the World from the 
Creation to the time of Abraham, who is thought to have 
lived nineteen hundred years before Christ ; after which it 
takes up the history of the Israelitish people only, and 
brings it down to the death and burial of Joseph, which 
are supposed to have happened about the year before 
Christ 1635. 

2. Exodus. 

The book of Exodus continues the narrative, begun in 
Genesis, to the Delivery of the Law from God to Moses, 
about the year 1490. 

3. Leviticus. 

The contents of this book are limited almost wholly to 



6 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

legislative enactments. A few historical facts, connected 
with the principal subject of the book, such as the ordina- 
tion of Aaron and his sons, are mentioned incidentally ; 
the period occupied by these events is supposed not greatly 
to exceed one month. 

4. Numbers. 

The book of Numbers comprehends the space of thirty- 
nine years, being, in fact, the whole period of the Israeli- 
tish wanderings in the wilderness from the year 1490 to 
1451 before Christ. From the absence of chronological 
data it is impossible to ascertain the exact time of the events 
which happened in the interval between the Exodus of the 
Israelites from Canaan, and their entry into the promised 
land. 

5. Deuteronomy. 

The time occupied by the events mentioned in Deutero- 
nomy is limited to one year at the utmost, the 1451st year 
before Christ, in which the Israelites, having wandered 
forty years in the Desert, at length prepare to invade the 
land of Canaan. The last events related in this book are, 
the death of Moses and the succession of Joshua as leader 
of the Israelitish people. 

6. Joshua. 

The book of Joshua comprehends a period of about 25 
years, from b. c. 1451 to b. c. 1425, during which the able 
captain, from whom the book takes its name, subdued the 
Canaanitish nations, and divided their territories among 
his followers. 

7. Judges. 

The chronology of the book of Judges is more uncertain 
than that of the preceding : it comprehends, probably, 
about the space of three hundred and ten years, i. e. from 
1425 to 1115, but the want of chonological connection 
between the events which it relates renders it impossible 
to arrive at any more accurate conclusion. 



2,] CHRONOLOGY OF THE 39 BOOKS. 7 

8. Ruth. 
This book gives us an account of the fortunes of Ruth 
and her family, during a space of ten years, immediately 
preceding the time at which the book of Judges ends. 
9. 10. The books of Samuel. 
The first of these books records the history of Samuel, 
who judged Israel immediately before the election of a 
king, together with the reign of king Saul, a period as is 
supposed of about 115 years, from 1170 to 1055. 

The second book of Samuel comprises the reign of David, 
which lasted 40 years, from 1055 to 1015. 

11. 12. The two books of Kings. 
The narrative is continued from 1016, the year of David's 
death, in the first of these books, down to the death of 
Jehoshaphat, in 889, and, in the second book of Kings, 
from the year last-named, to the thirty-seventh year of the 
captivity of Jehoiachim king of Judah, coinciding with the 
562nd year before Christ. 

13. 14. The two books of Chronicles. 
The first book of Chronicles contains a series of genea- 
logical tables, followed by a variety of events that hap- 
pened in the reign of David, which is stated to have lasted 
40 years, from 1055 to 1015. The second book of 
Chronicles contains the whole Jewish history from the 
accession of Solomon in 1015 to the decree of Cyrus in 536. 
Many of the facts which it relates are mentioned in the 
books of Kings ; but others are new. 

15. Ezra. 
The book of Ezra comprehends the space of 80 years 
from the decree of Cyrus to the year b. c. 456. 

16. Nehemiah. 
This book takes up the history ten years after the con- 
clusion of Ezra, i."e. in 446, and brings it down to about 
the year b. c. 434. 

17. Esther. 
This book comprises the history of only 12 years from 



THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. 



[chap. 



b. c. 521 to 509. A book, purporting to be the conclud- 
ing portion of Esther, is found in the Apocrypha. 

18. Job. 
The chronology of this book is altogether unknown ; 
and it partakes of a didactic, if not a poetic, rather than of 
an historic character. 

19. Psalms — 20. Proverbs — 21. Ecclesiastes — 22. Solo- 
mon's Song. 
These four books contain few direct historical allusions : 
they are supposed to have been mostly written by David 
and his son Solomon; i. e. between the years 1056 and 
975 before Christ ; though some are of a later date, as for 
instance the 137th Psalm, which was certainly written after 
or during the Babylonish Captivity. 

23 to 39. The seventeen prophetical books. 
The seventeen prophetical books contain many historical 
facts, though they are not of a strictly historical nature. 
They are not arranged chronologically in our Bibles, but as 
they will be cited in this work for historical purposes 
only, it will be useful to place them in the order of time, 
as follows : 



Jonah is said to h 

Amos . 

Hosea. 

Isaiah . 

Joel . 

Micah . 

Nahum 

Zephaniah 

Jeremiah 

Habakkuk 

Daniel. 

Obadiah 

Ezekiel 

Haggai 



ave written between 



856 


and 


784 


810 


— 


785 


810 


— 


725 


810 


— 


698 


810 


— ■ 


650 


758 


— 


699 


720 


— 


698 


640 


— 


602 


628 


— 


586 


612 


— 


598 


606 


- — 


534 


588 


— 


583 


595 


— . 


536 


520 


— 


518 



3.] BOOKS NOT 39 BUT 17 ONLY. 9 

Zechariah 520 — 517 

Malachi 436 — 31)7 

As the present enquiry is not extended to the Apocry- 
phal Books of the Old Testament, it is unnecessary to in- 
clude them in this chronological summary. 



CHAPTER III. 

That the books of the Old Testament are not 39 
in number, but 17 only* 

Although the Old Testament is divided into 39 parts or 
books, yet we must not understand that it contains 39 
separate works, unconnected in their subjects, or written 
by 39 different authors. In the Hebrew Bible are 22 
books only, which is also the number of letters in the 
Hebrew alphabet. These 22 books were divided " into 
three classes ■; the first class consisted of five books, namely 



10 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, 
which they called the Law : the second class consisted of 
13 books, namely Joshua, Judges and Ruth, in one 
book ; the two books of Samuel, of Kings, and of Chroni- 
cles respectively, in single books ; Ezra and Nehemiah in 
one book ; Esther, Job, Isaiah, the two books of Jeremiah 
in one ; Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets in 
one book ; these thirteen books they called the Prophets : 
the third class consisted of the four remaining books, 
namely Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of 
Solomon, which four books the Jews called Chetubim ; 
and the Greeks Hagiographa ; this class was also called the 
Psalms, from the name of the first book in it * " 

But we must not conclude that there are even 22 sena- 
rate works, in the Hebrew Bible, but rather that this divi- 
sion was adopted for the convenience of reference, which 
would naturally be required in the case of so bulky a 
volume as the Hebrew Scriptures. 

The connection between the number of these books, 
and the number of letters in the Hebrew Alphabet, demands 
to be noticed. We are not informed to what origin this 
fact is to be referred ; but the Jews have always been fond 
of allegory and similitude : hence we may suspect that the 
coincidence was not undesigned, but that it was contrived 
at the time when the Masoretic notes and points were in- 
vented, and when the Jewish doctors took so much pains 
to count the words and even letters contained in their 
Sacred Books. But this subject will be noticed more fully 
hereafter. 

Some of these 22 books are to be considered as portions 
of the same work rather than separate works ; for, " though 
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteromy stood 
as separate books in the private copies used by the Jews 
in the time of Josephus, they were written by their author 

* Tomline's Elements of Christian Theology, vol. 1, p. 3. 

f " It is not known when this division took place, but probably it was first 



3.] BOOKS NOT 39 BUT 17 ONLY. 11 

Moses," says Bishop Tomline, "in one continued work, 
and still remain in that form, in the public copies read in 
the Jewish Synagogues. These five books are now gene- 
rally known by the name of the Pentateuch." As the pub- 
lic copies read in the Synagogues are undoubtedly more 
likely, than the private copies, to retain the original form 
of these writings, we may consider the number 22 to be 
reduced to 17, by the union of the first five, namely Gene- 
sis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, into one. 

But there is an ambiguity in the use of the word book, 
which must be carefully guarded against. Sometimes it 
means a whole work, whether divided into parts or not ; 
sometimes it means a separate volume, and it has also a 
third meaning, that of part or division of a work, in which 
sense it is analogous to chapter, canto, part, Szc. which are 
terms used arbitrarily by writers to denote the separate 
divisions of the same work. 

Looking at the contents of the second or Prophetical 
class into which the Hebrew Scriptures were divided, we 
may enquire why the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel 
and others, which certainly are Historical and not Prophe- 
tical, at least in our acceptation of the word, are included 
in the same class with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the rest, whom 
we now, more appropriately, as might be thought, designate 
as Prophets. The answer to this question is suggested by 
the meaning which the Jews ascribed to the word Prophet, 
by which term they designated a teacher or poet, and not 
merely one who foretold future events. In this sense, 
Joshua and the Judges were called Prophets with no less 
propriety than Daniel, Jeremiah or Isaiah. Tnat the 
Pentateuch was kept apart from that which follows it in 
the Hebrew Canon arose partly from the higher honour 

adopted in the Septuagint version, as the titles prefixed are of Greek derivation. 
The beginnings of Exodns, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, are very- 
abrupt, and plainly shew that these books were formerly joined to Genesis." 

Note by Bishop Tomline, 



12 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

which was due to their great law-giver, and partly from the 
fact that the whole of the Jewish Law was contained in 
those five books, which consequently were often designated 
simply as the Law, whereas the following books were 
merely histories of the lives of the teachers who succes- 
sively ruled Israel after the death of Moses. 

The third class, into which the Jews divided the books 
of the Old Testament, Hagiographa or Chetubim, contained 
neither Law nor History, but moral and didactic writings, 
with exhortations addressed to the people, that they should 
continue steadfast in the service and worship of their God. 

It appears, then, that the Hebrew Scriptures, according 
to the copies which were publicly used in the Synagogues, 
were divided into 17 books only, though in all the versions 
which have been made of them, whether Greek, Latin, or 
in the modern languages of Europe, the number of books 
has been increased to more than the double of this amount. 
In all such cases, subdivision is the work of a later age, 
is never coeval with the original work. In the case 
of the Old Testament, the moderns have abandoned the 
ancient division of the whole volume into three classes, as 
unnecessary, and have, for the sake of convenience, 
adopted the more simple arrangement into books, the 
number of which, by minute subdivision, they have raised 
from 22 to 39 and upwards. 



4.] A CONTINUOUS NARRATIVE. 13 



CHAPTER IV. 

That the 5 books of Moses, with the books of Joshua, 

Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings and 

II Kings, are closely connected, and form a 

continuous narrative. 

If we examine the early part of the Old Testament 
attentively, we shall find strong marks of connection 
between many of the 17 books, which stand separate in 
the public Jewish copies. As the books of Genesis, Exodus, 
Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are admitted to 
have foimed but one book in the Hebrew Canon, it is 
unnecessary to apply the present argument to them : but 
it is remarkable that the succeeding books, Joshua, Judges, 
Ruth, Samuel and Kings, are all as closely in continuation, 
the one of the other, as the five books before-mentioned. 
The book of Joshua is also in immediate continuation of 
Deuteronomy ; and, in short so close is the connexion of 
all the early part of the Old Testament from Genesis to 
the end of the Second Book of Kings, that if it was all 
printed without division in one continuous narrative, it 
would be impossible for the most sagacious critic to restore 
it to the form which it now bears. 

As this is an assertion of fact which can only be proved 
by adducing all the instances, it is necessary to extract the 
beginnings and endings of each book in succession from 
the close of Deuteronomy to the beginning of the Second 
Book of Kings. The reason, why I do not extend this exa- 
mination further, namely to the books of Chronicles, Ezra 
and others, will be explained hereafter. 

The book of Deuteronomy ends with these words : 

And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom 
the Lord knew face to face : in all the signs and the wonders, which 



14 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his 
servants and to all his land ; and in all that mighty hand, and in all the 
great terror which Moses shewed in the sight of Tsrael. 

The book of Joshua, which follows Deuteronomy, takes 
up the narrative exactly at the point where it terminates, 
in the following manner : 

Now, after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, it came to 
pass that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses's minister, 
saying, Moses my servant is dead, &c." 

Our quotation from the end of Joshua must be more 
extended, in order to shew more clearly that it bears 
a similar relation to the book of Judges, which is the next 
in order. 

And it came to pass, after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, 
the servant of the Lord, died, being an hundred and ten years old. 
And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath-Serah, 
which is in Mount Ephraim, on the north side of the hill of Gaash. 
And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the clays of 
the elders that over-lived Joshua, and which had known all the works 
of the Lord, that he had done for Israel. 

And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up 
out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob 
bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for an hundred 
pieces of silver: and it became the inheritance of the kingdom of 
Joseph. 

And Eleazar the son of Aaron died, and they buried him in a hill 
that pertained to Phinehas his son, which was given him in Mount 
Ephraim. 

Consistent with this extract is the beginning of the book 
of Judges, which opens thus : 

Now after the death of Joshua it came 1o pass, that the children of 
Israel asked the Lord saying, " Who shall go up for us against the 
Canaanites first, to fight against them ?" 

After Judges comes the book of Ruth, which is very 
short, and gives us an account of her adventure and subse- 
quent marriage with Boaz : it opens as follows : 



4.] A CONTINUOUS NARRATIVE. 15 

Now it came to pass in the days when the Judges ruled, that there 
was a famine in the land. 

If it be asserted that these words form a very appropriate 
exordium to a separate work or book ; I refer the reader 
back to the nineteenth chapter of Judges, which, he will 
find, commences in a similar manner : 

And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, 
that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of Mount 
Ephraim, &c. 

The history of this Levite forms the subject of the last 
three chapters of Judges, and is as much distinct from the 
rest of that work as the book of Ruth. The history of the 
Levite and the history of Ruth, are, in fact, a sort of 
episode to ' Judges ; ' both of them contain prominent 
events which happened in Israel ' whilst the Judges ruled/ 
and ' whilst there was no king/ which evidently are synony- 
mous expressions. 

Equally applicable to our argument are the books of 
Samuel and Kings, as will appear from the following 
extracts. 

The first book of Samuel opens with the history of 
Samuel the last of the Judges : 

Now there was a certain man of Eamathaim-zophim, of mount 
Ephraim &c. 

It may be said to follow in chronological order, and to 
bear quite as close a connection with the book of Judges, 
as the history of Ruth, or that of the Levite which is 
admitted to form part of the book of Judges. It concludes 
with the death of Saul : 

And when the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead heard of that which the 
Philistines had done to Saul; all the valiant men arose and w T ent all 
night, and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his two sons from 
the wall of Bethshan, and came to Jabesh, and burnt them there : and 
they took their bones, and buried them under a tree at Jabesh, and 
fasted seven days. 



16 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

The opening of the second book of Samuel is in the 
closest harmony with the preceding : 

Now it came to pass after the death of Saul, when David was returned 
from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had abode two days in 
Ziklag, it came even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came 
out of the camp from Saul with his clothes rent, and earth upon his 
head, &c. 

The book concludes with the words : 

David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt-offerings 
and peace-offerings : so the Lord was intreated for the land, and the 
plague was stayed from Israel. 

This is generally believed to have happened in the latter 
part of David's life. Accordingly, we find, the first book 
of Kings confirms that opinion and takes up the history 
where the preceding book had left it : 

Now king David was old and stricken in years, and they covered him 
with clothes, but he gat no heat. 

The book concludes with the reign of Ahaziah, thus : 

Ahaziah the son of xihab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the 
seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years 
over Israel : and he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the 
way of his father, and in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jero- 
boam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin : for he served Baal, 
and worshipped him, and provoked to anger the Lord God of Israel, 
according to all that his father had done. 

But all the events of Ahaziah's reign are found in the 
second book of Kings, the beginning of which follows so 
closely the extract just made, that it is difficult to conceive 
the two books of Kings in any other light than as a con- 
tinued history ; and it comprehends as we have seen in the 
last chapter, a space of about five hundred and forty years. 
The opening of the second book of Kings is as follows : 

Then Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab. And 
Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in Ins upper-chamber that was in 

Samaria, and was sick, &c. 



4.] A CONTINUOUS NARRATIVE. 17 

Thus all the writings of the Old Testament from Genesis 
to the two books of Kings form an uninterrupted narrative 
of events which are described as having happened first to 
the world at large from the Creation down to about 1900 
years before Christ, and afterwards to the family and 
posterity of Abraham down to about the 600th year before 
the same era, when the tribes of Israel were torn by 
violence from the paternal land of Canaan, and carried to 
Babylon, where they remained in captivity until the first 
year of the reign of Cyrus king of Cyrus. 

As no evidence remains to prove that the separate 
divisions, entitled Genesis, Joshua, Judges &c. are any 
more than consecutive parts of the same work, we are 
justified in viewing them in this light, until good grounds 
shall be adduced for disconnecting them. If it be neces- 
sary to say more on this subject, an illustration may be 
drawn from the case of Herodotus, who wrote a History 
of the wars between the Greeks and Persians, in nine 
books. But these books bear, each the name of one of 
the nine Muses, Clio, Melpomene, &c. and no one has 
ever disputed the unity of these books, the identity of their 
author, or the continuity of their subject. 

Next in order to the books of Kings succeed the books 
of Chronicles, which certainly do not form a sequel, nor 
yet, strictly speaking, a supplement to the books of Kings, 
for they comprise the same period of history again, often 
in the very same words, and record many particulars 
omitted in the books which precede. Yet the beginning 
of Chronicles is remarkably abrupt, and its connection 
with the end of Kings is not more incoherent than is the 
relation which its own internal parts bear to one another. 
I propose therefore to treat of the books of Chronicles 
hereafter in a separate chapter, for the following reasons : 

1. They do not connect themselves with the preceding 
books of Kings so as to form a continuous narrative, like 
all the other writings which we have just reviewed. 

3 



18 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

2. They contain so many allusions to the Babylonish 
captivity, that they must undoubtedly have been written 
after that event. 

3. They are admitted by all the Commentators to have 
been written, as they suppose, by Ezra, after the Baby- 
lonish captivity, whereas most of the preceding books pro- 
fess to have been written, before that great National 
Revolution. 

The remaining books, which complete the volume of 
the Old Testament, do not at present require to be noticed. 



CHAPTER V, 
That the Old Testament is compiled from mor£ 

ANCIENT WORKS* 

If the* reasons produced in the last chapter are sufficient 
to establish the belief that the several books of the Old 
Testament are but different sections of the same work, and 
form a continuous narrative ; so, also, are there other 



5.] COMPILED FROM EARLIER SOURCES. 19 

equally strong reasons for believing that the Old Testament 
is a compilation, and not an original work. These reasons 
are all deduced from the books themselves, and may be 
classed as follows. 

§ 1. Interruptions in the narrative. 

1. The narrative of the Old Testament, though histori- 
cally continuous from the end of one book to the begin- 
ning of the next, is, in other places, interrupted by the 
insertion of separate and complete histories, which are 
even " distinguished by such appropriate titles as, in any 
other volume of antiquity, would be acknowledged to point 
out the beginning of detached compositions.*" Thus, at 
Genesis, ch. ii, verse 3, is concluded the account of the 
creation of the world with the words : 

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it 
lie had rested from all his work, winch God created and made. 

" Then follows another brief history of the creation, the 
garden of Eden, and the fall of man, with an exordium 
which intimates a distinct and independent composition. 

These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they 
were created fee.** 

" This book concludes with chap. hi. . . Chapter v begins 
with an appropriate title, which more particularly indicates 
a distinct and independent composition." 

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God 
created man, in the likeness of God made he him. 

" Here again the history of the creation of man is briefly 
recited, as an introduction to this separate book, which is 
complete in its kind ; for it begins from the creation and 
concludes with the birth of the sons of Noah. May it not 
be regarded as a transcript from an authentic genealogical 



* Dalies'* Celtic Researches, page 40. 



20 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

table or pedigree, which had been regularly kept in the 
family of this patriarch ? " 

We have afterwards — " These are the generations of 
Noah " — "These are the generations of the sons of 
Noah/' &c. 

The reflections, which flow from these observations are 

obvious. Those which follow are taken from the Celtic 

Researches, the author of which has entered deeply into 

several subjects that will occur to our notice in the course 

of this volume. 

These things I cannot bnt consider as internal proofs, that Moses has 
Dot only alluded to writings which existed before his own time, but has 
actually given us transcripts of some of the compositions of the primitive 
ages : and that the book of Genesis, like other historical parts of the 
Scripture, consists in a great measure of compilations from more early 
documents. May not these several books, which recapitulate the same 
events, and the matter of which has not been wholly forgotten by the 
heathens, be regarded as so many primitive records, adding mutual 
strength to each other, and reflecting mutual light, in the same manner 
as the books of Kings and Chronicles, and the narratives of the four 
evangelists ? 

If we duly consider the matter contained in the book of Genesis, I 
think we shall be led to conclude that much of it must necessarily have 
been collected from prior documents. Erom example (Gen. xxii. 20.) 
Abraham receives information respecting the family of his brother Nahor. 
No reason is given why it was told Abraham : nor does any thing imme- 
diately follow, as a consequence of such information. But as the 
account related to Abraham's family, we are left to conclude, that he 
recorded it ; and, upon his authority, Moses preserves the record. He 
gives it not as a subject of revelation, nor as the result of his enquiry 
amongst the descendants of Nahor, nor yet does he content himself with 
registering the simple fact, but he tells us what had been told Abraham 
at such a time. At a distance of 400 years, he transcribes the names 
of Nahor's eight sons in due order, with some particular circumstances 
respecting them, as it had been told Abraham, and therefore, as it must 
have been recorded in some memorials in Abraham's family. Moses 
must have possessed a very exact detail of the transactions of Abraham's 
time. Hence the circumstantial account of the expedition of the four 
kings, of that patriarch's treaties with the princes of the land in which 



5.] FREQUENT REPETITIONS. 21 

he sojourned, of his sacrifices, and of the promises he received, and the 
allusion (Ex. xii.) to the year, the month, and the very day on which he 
began his peregrinations. 

In confirmation of the opinion advanced above, it may be observed, 
that history furnishes no instance of an exact chronology having been 
preserved, for a series of ages, by any people who were totally illiterate. 
Relative dates, and the enumeration of months and days, would soon 
become unmanageable in oral tradition : and the precise length of mens* 
lives, and their age at the birth of their children, are circumstances not 
likely to have been the subject of immediate revelation to Closes. Yet 
his history of the primitive world preserves an unbroken chain of chro- 
nology, from the creation. 

2. Repetitions, 

In the several portions of which each book of the Old 
Testament consists, the same events are recapitulated, to 
the same general effect, and sometimes with the addition 
of fresh matter. The earliest instance of this is in the 
history of the creation, which is related over again three 
several times, yet putting the subject each time in a some- 
what different light. The instances of similar repetition 
are so numerous that, if duplicates were rejected, the 
Pentateuch would not occupy more than half of its present 
compass. It is sufficient to name two or thiee notable 
instances which are the most difficult to be explained, 
except on the supposition that there once were earlier 
records. 

The first which I shall adduce is the repetitition of many 
parts of the Jewish Law, and in particular the ten com- 
mandments, which are first given in the 20th chapter of 
Exodus, and in such a manner that their insertion furnishes 
an example of a break in the recital, as well as of a repe- 
tition. The 19th chapter of Exodus ends with these words : 

So Moses went down unto the people and spake unto them. 

. He went down, as we learn from the preceding verses, 
to caution the people not to come too near. There is no- 
thing said of his going up again : but the next words to 



22 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [cHAF. 

these, which are certainly the words that God spoke to 
him, are : 

And God spake all these words, saying (( I am the Lord thy 
God &c." 

The narrative is here plainly broken, and must be reunit- 
ed by inserting an account of Moses going up again into 
the Mount : if, indeed, the narrative is continuous at all. 

The ten commandments are again enumerated in the 
5th chapter of Deuteronomy from the mouth of Moses, 
and prefaced by the admonitions of the lawgiver not to 
forget those commandments and the other parts of the co- 
venant which God had given them. It cannot be supposed 
that Moses wrote them twice, though he may have recited 
them many times to the people, neither would a later his- 
torian have written them twice in an original historical 
work, but in a collection of narratives taken from earlier 
documents, it is plain that, to preserve the original words, 
as far as possible, many such repetitions would be una- 
voidable. 

The whole of II Kings chap, xviii, ver. 13, to chap, xx, 
19, is the same as Isaiah, chap, xxvi, verse 1, to the end 
of the thirty ninth chapter ; the two passages contain the 
history of Hezekiah's alarm at the approach of Sennacherib, 
and God's vengeance on the Assyrian army. As it is impos- 
sible to say which of the claimants for these chapters is 
the real author, it is best to ascribe them to some third 
unknown author, from whom both have copied them. 

The next instance of repetition is still more striking, be- 
cause we fail into an inevitable dilemma, in endeavouring 
to explain it. The 36th chapter of Genesis contains a 
separate and complete account of the genealogy of Esau, 
entirely disconnected with what goes before, and with 
what follows. In the 31st verse of this chapter, we find 
the heading or title : 

And these are the kings that reigued in the land of Eclom, before 
there reigned any king over the children of Israel. 



5.] FREQUENT REPETITIONS. 23 

This verse and the twelve which follow, occur almost 
verbatim in the first book of Chronicles, chap, i, v. 43. 
This circumstance involves us in a double dilemma. Either 
the two documents were copied, the one from the other, 
or both were copied from a common original. It will not, 
I presume, be readily allowed that the author of Genesis 
copied these thirteen verses from Chronicles : though even 
this argument has been put forward * ; neither can I admit 
that the author of Chronicles, supposed to be Ezra, would 
copy from Genesis ; because Ezra is supposed to have 
written Chronicles as supplementary to preceding books, 
and not as copies from them : he is said also to have revis- 
ed and amended all of the Old Testament for public use. 

The same observations apply also to other chapters of 
Chronicles f which need not now be noticed. It remains, 
therefore, to suppose that the two identical accounts were 
drawn from some common source. Original authors sel- 
dom abound in repetitions ; two independent authors never 
use the same words to any great extent ; but compilers, 
out of respect to early and valuable records, retain them in 
their first shape. 



* In the Age of Reason, thus : " It was with consistency that the writer of 
the Book of Chronicles could say, as he has said 1st Chron, chap, i, verse 43, 
These are the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king 
over the children of Israel, hecause he was going to give, and has given, a 
list of the kings that had reigned in Israel ; but, as it impossible that the same 
expression could have been used hefore that peroid, it is as certain as any thing 
can be proved from historical language, that this part of Genesis is taken from 
Chronicles and that Genesis is not so old as the Chronicles, and probably not so 
old as the book of Homer, or as iEsop's Fables, admitting Homer to have been, as 
the tables of chronology state, contemporary with David or Solomon, and 
JEsop to have lived about the end of the Jewish monarchy." This argu- 
ment does not appear to me conclusive. The terms of the question certainly 
admit the supposition that Chronicles was copied from Genesis : but I believe 
both to be collections formed out of earlier writings, as stated in the text 
above. 

f If the reader is curious to compare the books of Chronicles with other 
portions of the Scripture, he may do so without difficulty by the help of a 
bible having marginal references. 



24 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

The thirty-first chapter of the first book of Samuel, con- 
sisting of thirteen verses only, is verbatim the same as the 
first twelve verses of I Chronicles, chap. x. The position 
of this tenth chapter of Chronicles is remarkable : it fol- 
lows the preceding nine chapters of genealogies, without 
any preface whatever, leaving us to the only admissible 
hypothesis, that the writer of it copied two prior documents, 
leaving each to tell its own story. If Ezra wrote this, he 
either could not have revised the preceding and earlier 
Scriptures, or he did not publish both as an uniforn work, 
or he published them professedly as a collection of sepa- 
rate documents and not as a homogeneous work. If Ezra 
revised the other books of Scripture, and then copying 
whole chapters from them, published these to the world as 
his ow r n in the books of Chronicles, he was guilty of a pla- 
giarism, which would be aggravated, not palliated, by the 
sacred nature of the subject. It would also be not only a 
useless, but a pernicious labour, to encrease the size of 
the Scriptures without adding to the value of their 
contents. 

Comparing the argument of the last chapter with that 
of the present, I lay the stress of my observations upon 
this fact — that the divisions into books, Genesis, Exodus, 
Leviticus, &c. are arbitrary, and do not coincide with the 
real divisions which shew themselves in numerous places, 
by the abrupt change of subject, by repetitions, and other 
indications. In other words, where there is a continuity 
of subject, our present headings or titles make breaks, and 
where there is no continuity, the narrative is made to run 
on without interruption. 

This is plainly the process of a compiler, or artist, who, 
having united his materials together; cuts them into diffe- 
rent lengths for the convenience of use. 



5.] EARLIER AUTHORS QUOTED. 25 

3. Earlier writings are quoted by the authors of the old 

Testament. 

1. In the twenty-first chapter of Numbers, at verse 14, 
we find these words : 

Wherefore it is said in the hook of the wars of the Lord, " What he 
did in the Red Sea, and in the brooks of Anion, and at the stream of 
the brooks that goeth down to the dwelling of Ar, and lieth upon the 
border of Moab." 

The note to this passage in the family Bible is as follows : 

Some ancient record of those countries, to which Moses refers : or, 
more probably, the following account of the wars of the Israelites, 
given in the sacred history, by Moses, and other inspired writers. 
Pjle, Dr Welh, 

We shall have occasion to recur to these verses here- 
after : at present I adduce them to show that the writer 
or writers of the Old Testament actually quoted earlier 
writings. 

In the tenth chapter of Joshua is the account of Joshua's 
commanding the sun to stand still. At verse 13 we read : 

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had 
avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the 
book of Jasher ? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted 
not to go down about a whole day. 

The book of Jasher is again mentioned in II Samuel, i, 
17. 18 : 

And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan 
his son. Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of 
the bow : behold, it is written in the book of Jasher. 

2. In the first book of Kings, xi, 41, we read : 

And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his 
wisdom, are they not written in the book of the Acts of Solomon ? 

The note attached to this passage in the Family Bible, 
is taken from Bishop Patrick : 

The kings of Israel were accustomed to maintain some wise persons, 



26 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

who committed to writing all that passed in their reign. Perhaps this 
practice was begun by Solomon ; for we read not of any book of the 
acts of David. Out of these annals, the sacred writer of this book 
took what he thought most useful, and omitted the rest, which he did 
not judge so necessary and instructive. 

Bishop Patrick, when he wrote this, must have forgotten 
the following extract from I Chron. xxix, 29, where the 
Acts of David are said to have been recorded in the same 
manner as those of his predecessors : 

Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are 
written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Gad the 
seer. 

The Chronicles of King David are also referred to in I 
Chron. xxvii, 24, and were probably the same book as the 
« Acts : " 

Joab the son of Zeruiah began to number, but he finished not, because 
there fell wrath for it against Israel ; neither was the number put in 
the account of the chronicles of king David. 

The second book of Chronicles, chap, ix, 29, takes notice 
of the Acts of Solomon, and names three writers who 
recorded them : 

Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not 
written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophesy of 
Ahijah the Shilouite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against 
Jeroboam the son of Nebat ? 

In the second book of Chronicles, chap, xii, v. 15, we 
have a new writer of Acts mentioned : 

Now the acts of Rehoboaro, first and last, are they not written in 
the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning 
genealogies ? 

II Chronicles, xiii, 22 : 

And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are 
written in the story of the prophet Iddo. 

II Chronicles, xx, 34. 
Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they 



5.] EARLIER AUTHORS QUOTED. 27 

are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in 
the book of the kings of Israel. 

II Chron. xxvi, 22. 

Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the 
prophet, the son of Arnoz, write. 

II Chron. xxix, 30. 

Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites 
to sing praises unto the Lord with the words of David, and of Asaph 
the seer. 

II Chron. xxxii, 32. 

"Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness, behold, they 
are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, and in 
the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. 

2. Chron. xxxv, 25. 

And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, and all the singing men and the 
singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and 
made them an ordinance in Israel : and, behold, they are written in the 
Lamentations. 

Besides these various books, the authors of which are 
named, we have the " Chronicles of the kings of Israel and 
Judah" referred to more than thirty times at least. Of 
the manner in which they are mentioned, the following is 
an example : 

I Kings, xiv, 19. And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how lie 
warred, and how he reigned, behold they are written in the book of the 
chronicles of the kings of Israel. 

The book of the "chronicles of the kings of Israel" is 
mentioned altogether in 19 places: — I Kings, xiv, 19. xv, 
31. xvi, 5. 14. 20. 27. xxii, 39. II Kings, i, 18. x, 34. xiii, 
8. 12. xiv, 15. 28. xv, 11. 15. 21. 26. 31. 36. 

The book of the " chronicles of the kings of Judah " is 
similarly mentioned in I Kings, xiv, 29. xv, 7. 23. xxii, 45. 
II Kings, viii, 23. xii, 19. xiv, 18. xv, 6. xvi, 19. xx. 20. 
xxi, 25. xxiii, 28. 



28 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

These quotations are found in our present books of 
Kings; and in the Chronicles are quoted, in a similar 
manner, " the book of the kings of Judah," and " the 
book of the kings of Israel," — or, unitedly, " the book of 
the kings of Judah and Israel " — they are mentioned in 
II Chronicles xvi, 11. xx, 34. xxv, 26. xxvii, 7. xxviii, 26. 
xxxii, 32. xxxiii, 18. xxxv, 27. xxxvi, 8. 

In some of these places the subject admits the supposi- 
tion that our existing books of Kings are referred to ; but 
it also admits of the same view which has been taken above, 
namely, that earlier writings are quoted. 

4. Different names of God, 

An argument in favour of the theory that the Pentateuch 
is a compilation from earlier records has been founded on 
the variation of name given to the Supreme Being. 

In the first chapter of Genesis, to the fourth verse of 
the second chapter, he is called Elohim, ' the Gods/ which 
occurs 35 times, and he is there called by no other name. 
But in the rest of chap, ii, and in chap, iii, (except by the 
serpent, who calls him also Elohim) he is otherwise named 
Jehovah Elohim, which we translate the " Lord God," and 
this name occurs twenty times. 

The use of these terms [says Mr Davies] as here described, is, I think, 
a peculiarity which could not well have happened, in the original and 
entire composition of one age, one country, and one man. For however 
the mysterious meaning of the terms themselves may be discriminated, 
yet Elohirn in the first chapter, and Jehovah Elohim, in the second and 
third, are evidently used iu a synonymous sense, and precisely the same 
operations are ascribed to them. Celtic Researches, p. 41. 

Other appellations, also, as Adonai and Shaddai, are 
found in various parts of the Old Testament, and all 
designate the Supreme Being, with equal propriety. They 
appear to be independent of one another, and neither by 
metaphor, etymology or periphrasis, can be reduced to one 
origin, as Deity and Divinity from Deus in Latin, the 



gl CHRONOLOGY. 29 

Supreme Being, and other similar expressions, which are 
found in all the modern languages. 



CHAPTER VI. 

Chronological summary of Jewish History, 

The Hebrew Scriptures contain the most ancient accounts 
now existing of the world and of the human race. On 
this head they are strongly contrasted with the historical 
writings of the Greeks, the Romans, and all other ancient 
nations that we are now acquainted with. I do not speak 
of those stupendous monuments which cover the plains of 
Arabia, Asia, and the East, or of our own remains at Stone- 
henge, Avebury and elsewhere. These, if we could read 
them, would probably tell us of events quite as ancient as 
those which are recorded in the Pentateuch ; but the 
comparison, which we are instituting, concerns written 
records only, in which particular the Jews claim precedence 
over all other nations. 



30 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

A brief sketch of the history contained in their Scriptures, 
arranged tabularly, from Genesis to Kings, may be of 
use to our present enquiry, and save the trouble of refer- 
ring to the Scriptures themselves. The years given in the 
margin of our bibles, though in many places imper- 
fect, furnish data for determining, with some degree of 
accuracy, the system of chronology generally received 
among the learned. The creation of the world is placed 
4004 years before the beginning of the Christian era. The 
intervening dates of most importance are the following : 

B.C. 

4004 World created — Adam and Eve formed by God out of the dust 

of the ground. 
3130 Lamech, the seventh in descent from Adam, born. 
3074 Adam dies. 
3048 Noah is born. 
3353 Lamech dies. 
2448 The inhabitants of the earth, except Noah and his family, 

destroyed by the Deluge. 
2093 Noah dies. 

1921 Abraham goes down to Egypt. 
1706 Jacob and his family go to settle in Egypt. 
1491 The Israelites are led by Moses out of Egypt. 
1451 The Israelites are led by Joshua into the land of Canaan. 
1427 Joshua dies. 

The Israelites are governed by Judges. 
1095 Saul is elected the first king of Israel. 
1055 David becomes king of Israel after the death of Saul. 
1015 David dies and is succeeded by Solomon. 
975 Solomon dies, and is succeeded by Eehoboam ; but Jeroboam, at 
the head of ten tribes, revolts from Eehoboam; and the 
kingdom is from this time divided into the two separate 
sovereignties of Israel and Judah. 
Kings of Jddah. Kings of Israel. 

975 Eehoboam .... Jeroboam 
958 Abijam. 
955 Asa. 

954 .... • Nadab 

953 .... • Baasha 



6.] 



CHRONOLOGY. 



930 . 

929 . 

929 . 

918 . 

898 . 

896 . 

914 Jehoshaphat. 

892 Jehoram or Joram 

88b Ahaziah. 

884 Athaliah. . 

878 Joash. 

858 . 

841 . 

839 Amaziah 

825 . 

810 Azariah or Uzziah 

773 . ... 

772 . 

772 . 

761 . 

759 . 

758 Jotham. 

742 Ahaz. 

740 . 

740 . 

730 . ... 
726 Hezekiah 
721 . 



31 



Elah 

Zimri 

Omri 

Ahab 

Ahaziah 

Jehoram or Joram. 



Jehu 

Jehoahaz 
Jehoash or Joash, 

Jeroboam II. 

Zachariah 

Shallum 

Menahem 

Pekahiah 

Pekah 



First captivity of Israel by 
Tiglath-Pilezer. 
An inter-regnum. 
Hoshea 

Second captivity of Israel 
by Shalmaneser. 



Third captivity of Israel 
by Esar-haddon. 



698 Manasseh. 

678 

643 Amon. 

641 Josiah. 

610 Jehoahaz. 

610 Jehoiakim. 

606 First captivity of Judah. 

599 Jehoiachin, or Coniah or Jecouiah. 

599 Second captivity of Judah. 

599 Zedekiah. 

588 Third and final captivity of Judah and of the remains of Israel. 



32 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

536 Date of the edict of Cyrus, authorising the Jews to rsturn into 

their own country. 
515 The Temple finished and dedicated in the sixth year of Darius 

king of Persia. 
457 Ezra goes up from Babylon to Jerusalem in the seventh year of 

Artaxerxes king of Persia. 
445 Nehemiali goes up to Jerusalem, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes. 



CHAPTER. VIL 
Of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, 

The Hebrew Scriptures were often translated into foreign 
languages, at a very early period; but no other ancient 
version of them, made before the Christian era, than the 
Greek translation commonly called the Septuagint, is now 
in existence. The earliest of the Chaldee Targums,* i. e. 
paraphrases made, at a later period, in what is called the 
Chaldee dialect, for the use of the Jews themselves, when 
they had forgotten the Hebrew and afterwards spoke 
Chaldee, was written by Onkelos, who is supposed by 
Professor Eichhorn to have been contemporary with Christ, 

* See the extract on the Targums in the Appendix. 



7.] THE SEPTUAGINT. 33 

though Bauer and Jahn place him in the second century 
after the Christian era. For our present purpose therefore, 
which is to ascertain, on credible evidence, the real anti- 
quity of the Hebrew Bible, all these translations or para- 
phrases may be set aside ; for the Septuagint alone, which 
is generally understood to have been made about 280 years 
before Christ, is a sufficent proof that the Hebrew bible, of 
which it is a tolerably accurate translation, was at that time 
extant. 

A brief notice of the Septuagint translation will here 
suffice. When Alexander the Great died in the year 323 
before Christ, his empire was broken up into its compo- 
nent parts. Ptolemy Soter, son of Lagus, became king of 
Egypt, and in 312 he gained possession of Jerusalem and 
the Holy Land, which continued 100 years under the dom- 
inion of him and his descendants. A vast number of Jews 
were carried captives into Egypt, where they settled ; and 
learned the Greek language which was generally spoken in 
Alexandria. Ptolemy and his descendants were great 
patrons of learning, and there is no reason to doubt the as- 
sertion of Josephus and Philo Judseus, that the Greek 
translation of the Hebrew Bible was made, in the reign, if 
not by the command, of Ptolemy Philadelphus. With the 
critical questions, that may arise concerning the dialect, 
grammatical forms and peculiar idiom to be found in that 
translation, we have nothing to do at present. The existence 
of a translation — the Septuagint — made from the Hebrew 
Bible at that time, involves the inference that the He- 
brew itself also was then extant, or the less probable con- 
clusion that the Hebrew text is itself a version, and the 
Greek Septuagint the original. * 

* The fact, before noticed in page 5, that the Septuagint version comprises 
works, not found in the Hebrew canon, is of not much importance to tbis ques- 
tion ; for the Hebrew originals of these apocryphal books may have once existed, 
and afterwards perished , as we know has happened to the books of Gad the seer 
and Nathan the seer. 

5 



34 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

CHAPTER 8. 

Value of Contemporary History. 

It has been said that the authority of historical writings 
depends entirely on its being known who is their author. 
This,, however, is not universally true ; for many historical 
accounts, mostly fragments, and short treatises, are now 
in existence, the names of whose authors have perished, 
whilst the accounts themselves, being known by the anti- 
quity of the MS. where they are found, or by other means, 
to be contemporary with the events, are of the greatest 
historical value. It is, therefore, more correct to say that 
an historical record is mors likely to contain the truth, 
when we know not only who wrote it, but that its author 
had a good opportunity of ascertaining the truth of the 
facts which he relates. It is not, however, absolutely 
necessary that both these conditions should exist together ; 
it is sufficient that an historical record can be traced back 
to the very time when the facts, which it relates are said 
to have occurred ; in this case it becomes what is called 
Contemporary History, which is always considered more 
valuable than any other, though to give it a place among 
first-class historical documents, it is still necessary that we 
should know where or how the writer gained his informa- 
tion, and, if possible, we should know who that writer was. 
This will be evident from a few examples. 

The campaigns of Julius Caesar in Britain are related to 
us by the pen of that general himself, whose writings contain 
the only authentic records remaining of the events which 
happened whilst the Roman army was in this island. But 
several of the later Roman writers have recounted the same 
events, and their narratives, if Czesar's Commentaries had 
perished, would have given us the only account of Caesar's 
invasion and its consequences. In reading their histories, 



8.] VALUE OF CONTEMPORARY HISTORY. 35 

we should naturally have asked the question where they 
obtained their information, seeing that they wrote, some 
200, some 300, and others even 400 years after the events 
which they relate. 

One more illustration may suffice. The Roman histo- 
' rian, Livy, wrote in the reign of Augustus: he recounts 
the actions of Romulus the first Roman king with the 
greatest minutiae, and he not only does rot tell us where 
he obtained his information, but he even laments that all 
the early records of Rome were destroyed when that city 
was burnt by the Gauls. For this reason the early part of 
Livy's history is deservedly looked upon with suspicion 
and unbelief. 

As an instance of the credit which is always given to a 
history, known to have been composed at the very time 
when the events which it records are said to have occurred, 
we may adduce the valuable history of the Peloponnesian 
war by Thucydides, who commanded an Athenian fleet 
during that war; the Retreat of the Ten Thousandjby 
Xenophon, to whose military talents mainly was due the 
success with which that retreat was conducted; and in 
our own times the History of Napoleon's campaign in 
Russia by the Count de Segur, who served in that remark- 
able war. 

It is evident, that the memory of an event, no mat- 
ter what may have been its magnitude, must entirely perish 
from the earth, if all those who lived at the time, should 
die before the account of that event has been taken down 
in writing, or otherwise delivered to posterity, by monu- 
ments, coins, statues, and such other devices as the inge- 
nuity of man has contrived. This remark does not, of 
course, apply to physical phenomena, such as the inunda- 
tion of rivers, the falling of avalanches, the disruptions of 
mountains, earthquakes &c. all of which leave the most 
conspicuous memorials in the ruin which they create, and 
the debris which they leave behind them. It is true, also 



36 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

that the works of mankind may also, in their remains, con- 
vey to future ages an idea of what they once were : thus 
the works of Roman art are still turned up by the plough 
throughout the whole of Western Europe, confirming, 
beyond a doubt, the truth of what we read concerning that 
mighty people, and verifying the prediction of the poet, 

Scilicet et tempus veiriet, quum finibus illis 
Agricola, incurvo terrain molitus aratro, 
Exesa inveniet scabra rubigine pila, 
Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulcris. 

The time shall one day come when in that soil, 
The ploughman, as he ploughs the earth with toil, 
Shall turn up helmets eaten out with rust, 
.And gaze at mighty bones buried beneath the dust. 

But these imperishable records of the past cannot 
communicate to us the varied movements of human avarice 
pride, or ambition : they cannot trace the minute distinc- 
tions which separate the nations of the world : all the 
busy vicissitudes, which form the life and soul of that mag- 
nificent science, which we call written history, can not be 
wholly handed down to posteriy, though they can be 
usefully illustrated, by the ruins which time makes of 
man's works, after their authors have perished. To per- 
petuate the acts, the inventions, and the wisdom of our 
species, no other instrument can be used but the pen of 
the writer, 

That mighty instrument of little men ! 

It will be granted, then, that our estimate of an histori- 
cal work must depend on the means which the writer has 
enjoyed of ascertaining the truth of the facts which he 
records ; supposing always that he has honestly employed 
his materials. If we apply this remark to the Old Testa- 
ment, it becomes necessary to enquire, who are the authors 
of the several books, or — if we cannot ascertain who 
actually wrote them — whether it can be satisfactorily shewn 



9.] REPUTED AUTHORS. 37 

that the authors, whoever they were, had a good opportu- 
nity of knowing that they wrote nothing but the truth. 



CHAPTER 9. 
Op the reputed authors of the several books in 
the Old Testament. 



In the introduction to the First volume of D'Oyly and 
M ant's edition of the Bible, I find the following passage : 

The first five books of the Bible, commonly called the Pentateuch, 
were composed by Moses, as the concurrent testimonies of all ages 
declare; and, as hath ever been firmly believed by the Jews, with 
whom the fact continues to this day to be one of the thirteen articles of 
their creed. The word ce Pentateuch" is of Greek original ; being com- 
pounded of two words, signifying five, and book or volume. It was pro- 
bably first prefixed to the Greek version of the " Septuagint" or seventy 
translators ; to denote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and 

6 



38 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Deuteronomy ; all of which had been written by the hand of Moses in 
Hebrew, probably in the order in which they now stand, though not dis- 
tributed by their author into books, but forming one continued work. 

The same editors give us, compiled from Dr Gray and 
Bishop Tomline, the following remarks concerning the re- 
puted author of the book of Joshua : 

The book of Joshua contiuues the sacred history from the death of 
Moses to the deaths of Joshua and Eleazar, a space of about thirty 
years. It contains an account of the conquest and division of the land 
of Canaan, the renewal of the covenant with the Israelites, and the 
death of Joshua. There are two passages in this book which shew that 
it was written by a person, who lived at the time when the events hap- 
pened. In the 1st verse of chap, v, the author speaks of himself as 
being one of those who passed into Canaan, by using the expression, 
" Until we were passed over." And in the 25th verse of the follow- 
ing chapter, it appears that the book was written when Sabab was alive : 
for it is said of her, "she dwelleth in Israel unto this day." There is 
not a perfect agreement among the learned, respecting the author of 
this book : but by far the most general opinion is, that it was written 
by Joshua himself. The five verses, giving an account of the death of 
Joshua, were added by one of his successors, probably by Phineas or 
Samuel. 

As I shall hereafter enter more fully into the internal 
evidence which the book of Joshua furnishes, it is unne- 
cessary to say more in this place concerning the two 
passages here quoted, as proof that the work is of a con- 
temporary character. The extract is made at present, as 
shewing the opinion generally received concerning the 
origin of the book of Joshua and its author. 

Of the book of Judges, the same commentators remark : 

This book has been variously attributed to Samuel, to Phinehas, to 
Hezekiah, to Ezekiel, and also to Ezra, who is supposed by some to 
have collected it from the memoirs, which the' several judges respectively 
furnished of their own government. It seems, however, most probable, 
that Samuel was the author ; who, being a prophet or seer, and de- 
scribed in the book of Chronicles as an historian, may reasonably be 
supposed, as he was the last of the judges, to have written this part of 
the Jewish history, since the inspired writers alone were permitted to 



9.] REPUTED AUTHORS. 39 

describe those relations, in which were interwoven the instructions and 
judgements of the Lord. That it was certainly written before the reign 
of David is proved from the following passage, chap, i, ver. 21, "The 
Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin unto this day : " for it is 
certain, 2 Sam. v. 6, that the Jebusites were driven out of the city 
early in the reign of David. 

The assumed fact of David's expulsion of the Jebusites 
will be hereafter noticed. 

Of the book of Ruth : 

The book of Ruth is so called from the name of the person, a native 
of Moab, whose history it contaius. It may be considered as a supple- 
ment to the book of Judges, to which it was joined in the Hebrew 
canon, and the latter part of which it greatly resembles, being a 
detached story belonging to the same period. Ruth had a son called 
Obed, who was the grandfather of David ; which circumstance probably 
occasioned her history to be writteu, as the genealogy of David, from 
Pharez the son of Judah, from whom the Messiah was to spring, is 
here given : and some commentators have thought the descent of our 
Saviour from Ruth, a Gentile woman, to be an intimation of the com- 
prehensive nature of the Christian dispensation. We are no where 
informed when Ruth lived; but, as king David was her g v reat -grandson, 
we may place her history about 1250 years before Christ. This 
book was certainly written after the birth of David, chap, iv, 22, and 
probably by the prophet Samuel, though some have attributed it to 
Hezekiah, and others to Ezra. The subject of it is of so private a nature, 
that, at the time of its being written, the generality of people might not 
have thought it worth recording. 

Of the first book of Samuel : 

The Hebrews suppose that Samuel wrote the twenty-four first chapters 
of the first book, and that the rest were added by the prophets Gad 
and Nathan. This opinion is founded on these words in the first book 
of Chronicles, chap, xxix, 29, " Now the acts of David the king, first 
and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and 
in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer i" 
and it is approved by many writers of considerable authority. We may 
therefore assent to this general opinion, that Samuel was the author of 
at least the greater part of the first book, and that he probably composed 
it towards the latter end of his life. 

Nothing is said by the commentators above-mentioned 



40 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. (CHAP. 

concerning the author of the second book f of Samuel, but 
in Bishop Tomline's Elements of Christian Theology, vol. 
i, p. 87, we find the following passage : 

The second book of Samuel continues the history of David, after~the 
death of Saul, through a space of 40 years. It was probably written, 
as was just now observed, by Gad and Nathan, but it is impossible to 
assign to them their respective parts. 

The same writer, as quoted by the editors of the Bible 
before-mentioned, speaks of the two books of Kings in 
the following manner : 

The two books of Kings formed only one in the Hebrew canon. 
They cannot be positively ascribed to any particular author : some 
have ascribed them to Jeremiah, some to Isaiah; aud some, again, with 
more probability, suppose them to have been compiled by Ezra, from 
the records which were regularly kept, both in Jerusalem and Samaria, 
of all public transactions. These records appear to have been made by 
the contemporary prophets, and frequently derived their names from 
the kings whose history they contain. They are mentioned in many 
parts of Scripture : thus, in the first book of Kings, we read of 
the book of the Acts of Solomon, which is supposed to have been 
written by Nathan, Abijah, and Iddo. We elsewhere read, that 
Shemaiah the prophet and Iddo the seer, wrote the acts of Eehoboam ; 
that Jehu wrote the acts of Jehoshaphat, and Isaiah those of 
Uzziah and Hezekiah. We may therefore conclude, that from these 
public records, and other authentic documents, were composed the 
two books of Kings; and the uniformity of their style favours the 
opinion of their being put into their present shape by the same person. 

The two books of Chronicles are prefaced in the same 
Family Bible as follows : 

The two books of Chronicles formed but one in the Hebrew canon, 
which was called the book of Diaries or Journals. In the Septuagint 
version they were called, the books of " things omitted ;" and they 
were first named the books of Chronicles by St Jerome. They are 
supposed to be designed as a kind of supplement to the preceding books 
of Scripture, to supply such important particulars as had been omitted, 
because inconsistent with the plan of former books. They are generally, 
and with much probability, attributed to Ezra, whose book which bears 
his name is written with a similar style of expression, and appears to be 



9.] REPUTED AUTHORS. 41 

a continuation of thein. Ezra may have compiled these books, by the 
assistance of Haggai and Nehemiah, from historical records, and the 
accounts of contemporary prophets. 

The book of Ezra : 

This book derives its name from Ezra the author of it, 

Nehemiah : 

The book of Nehemiah being subjoined in the Hebrew canon to that 
of Ezra as a continuation of his history, was often considered as his 
work : and in the Latin and Greek Bibles it is called the second book 
of Ezra ; but it undoubtedly was written by Nehemiah. for he professes 
himself the author of it in the beginning, and uniformly speaks in the 
first person. 

The book of Esther : 

The author of the book is not certainly known. Some of the Fathers 
suppose it to have been written by Ezra ; others contend that it was 
composed by Joachim, high-priest of the Jews, and grandson of Josedech. 
The Talmudists ascribe it to the joint labours of the great synagogue, 
which succeeded Ezra in the superintendence of the canon of Scripture. 
The 20th verse of the 9th chapter of the book has led others to believe 
that Mordecai was the author; but what is there related to have been 
written by him, seems only to refer to the circular letter which he 
distributed. There are, lastly, other writers who maintain that the 
book ft T as the production of Esther's and Mordecai's united industry ; 
and probably they may have communicated an account of events so 
interesting to the whole nation, to the great synagogue at Jerusalem, 
some of the members of which may with great reason be supposed to 
have digested the information thus received into its present form. We 
have, however, no sufficient evidence to determine, nor is it, perhaps, 
of much importance to ascertain precisely, who was the author : but 
that the book contains a genuine and faithful description of what did 
actually happen, is certain, not only from its admission into the canon, 
but also from the institution of the feast of Purim, which from its first 
establishment has been regularly observed as an annual solemnity, on 
the 14th and 1 5th of the month Adar, in commemoration of the great 
deliverance which Esther, by her interest, had procured • and which is 
even now celebrated among the Jews with many peculiar ceremonies, 
and with rejoicings even to intoxication. This festival was called 
Purim, or the feast of lots, (Pur in the Persian language signifying a 
lot,) from the events mentioned in chap, hi, 7 ; ix, 24. 



42 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Job: 

It appears probable that Job himself was the writer of his own 

story If we allow Job himself to have been the writer of the book, 

there will be evidently two advantages hereby gained to it : as first, that 
all objections to the historical truth of it will vanish at once. &c. &c. 

Psalms : 

The book of Psalms, that is, the book of Hymns of Praises of the 
Lord, contains the productions of different writers. These productions 
are called however the Psalms of David, because a great part of them 
were composed by him. Some of them were perhaps penned before, 
and some cifter, the time of David ; but all of them by persons under 
the influence of the Holy Ghost, since all were judged worthy to be 
inserted into the canon of Sacred Writ. Ezra probably collected 
them into one book, and placed them in the order winch they now 
preserve. 

Proverbs : 

The Proverbs, as we are informed at the beginning, and in other 
parts of the book, were written, for the most part, by Solomon, the sc-n 
of David ; a man, as the Sacred Writings assure us, peculiarly endued 
with Divine wisdom. Whatever ideas of his superiour understanding 
we may be led to form by the particulars recorded of his judgment and 
attainments, we shall find them amply justified on perusing the works 
which remain, and give testimony of his abilities. This enlightened 
monarch, being desirous of employing the wisdom which he had received 
to the advantage of mankind, produced several works for their inspection. 
Of these, however, three only were admitted into the canon of Sacred 
Writ by Ezra ; the others being either not designed for religious in- 
struction, or so mutilated by time and accident, as to have been judged 
imperfect. The Book of Proverbs, that of Ecclesiastes, and that of the 
Song of Solomon, are all that remain of the writings of him, who is 
related to have spoken "three thousand proverbs," whose "songs were 
a thousand and five," and who " spake of trees from the cedar that is 
in Lebanon, even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall/' who 
" spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes." 
If. however, many valuable compositions of Solomon have perished, we 
have reason to be grateful for what still remains. Of his Proverbs and 
Songs the most excellent have been providentially preserved ; and, as 
we possess his doctrinal and moral works, we have no right to murmur 
at the lost of his physical and philosophical productions. 



9.] REPUTED AUTHORS. 43 

But it is not contended that King Solomon was the 
author of all the Proverbs contained in this book ; for 

The Proverbs which are included between the twenty-fifth and 
thirtieth chapters, and which constitute the fourth part, are supposed to 
have been selected from a much greater number by the "men of Heze- 
kiah " that is, by the prophets whom he employed to restore the ser- 
vice and the writings of the Church, as Eliakim, and Joah and Shebna, 
and probably Hosea, Micah, and even Isaiah, who all flourished in the 
reign of that monarch, and doubtlessly cooperated with his endeavours 
to re-establish true religion among the Jews. These Proverbs, indeed, 
appear to have been selected by some collectors after the time of So- 
lomon, as they repeat some which he had previously introduced in the 
former part of the book. The fifth part contains the prudent admoni- 
tions which Agur ihe son of Jakeh delivered to his pupils Ithiel and 
Ucal : these are included in the 30th chapter. It contains, also, the 
precepts which the mother of Lemuel delivered to her son, as described 
in the 31st chapter. Concerning these persons, whose works are annexed 
to those of Solomon, commentators have entertained various opinions. 
The original words, which describe Agur as the author of the thirtieth 
chapter, might be differently translated ; but admitting the present 
construction as most natural and just, we may observe, that the gener- 
ality of the Fathers and ancient Commentators have supposed that, 
under the name of Agur, Solomon describes himself, though no satis- 
factory reason can be assigned for his assuming this name. Others, upon 
very insufficient grounds, conjecture that Agur and Lemuel were inter- 
locutors with Solomon. The book has no appearance of dialogue, nor is 
there any interchange of person : it is more probable that though the 
book was designed principally to contain the sayings of Solomon, others 
might be added by the " men of Hezekiah i" and Agur might have 
been an inspired writer, whose moral and proverbial sentences (for such 
is the import of the word Massa, rendered prophesy) were joined with 
those of the Wise Man, because of the conformity of their matter. So 
likewise the dignity of the book is not affected, if we suppose the last 
chapter to have been written by a different hand, and admit the mother 
of Lemuel to have been a Jewish woman, married to some neighbouring 
prince ; or Abijah, the daughter of the high-priest Zechariah, and 
mother of king Hezekiah ; since in any case it must be considered as 
the production of an inspired writer, or it would not have been received 
into the canon of Scripture. But it was perhaps meant that by Lemuel 
we should understand Solomon ; for the name which signifies one be- 



44 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

longing to God, might have been given unto him as ctascriptive of his 
character, since to Solomon God had expressly declared that he would 
be a father. 

Ecclesiastes : 

The book of Ecclesiastes is called in Hebrew " Coheleth" a word 
which signifies one who speaks in public ; and which indeed is properly 
translated by the Greek word Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher. It is un- 
questionably the production of Solomon, who for the great excellency of 
his instructions is emphatically styled, " the Preacher :" for the writer 
of it styles himself, " the son of David, king of Jerusalem," chap, i, 1 ; 
he describes too his wisdom, his riches, his writings, and his works in a 
manner which is applicable only to Solomon ; and by all tradition, Jewish 
and Christian, the Book is attributed to him. It is said by the Jews to 
have been written by him, upon his awakening to repentance, after he 
had been seduced, in the decline of life, to idolatry and sin ; and, if 
this be true, it affords valuable proofs of the sincerity with which he re- 
gretted his departure from righteousness. 

Song of Solomon : 

This book was written by Solomon, to whom it is expressly ascribed 
by the Hebrew title. It is almost universally allowed to have been a 
marriage-song of that monarch, composed on the celebration of his nup- 
tials with a very beautiful woman, called " the Shulamite," the daugh- 
ter, as has been supposed, of Pharaoh and the favourite and distin- 
guished wife of Solomon. 

The Prophetical books of the Old Testament : 

It is universally acknowledged, that the remaining books of the Old 
Testament, namely the sixteen prophetical books, and the Lamentations 
of Jeremiah, were written by the persons whose names they bear. The 
prophets profess themselves to be the respective authors of these books : 
and this internal testimony is confirmed both by Jewish and Christian 
tradition. 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1. TRADITION. 45 

CHAPTER 10. 

The claims of Moses to the authorship of the 
Pentateuch investigated : First from Univer- 
sal Consent. 

It is admitted by all who have examined this subject, 
that the earliest accounts and traditions of all nations are 
either wholly fabulous, or are so intermingled with fable 
that it is most difficult, if not wholly impossible, to distin- 
guish the true from the false. Of our own island we know 
almost nothing before the invasion of Caesar : and France, 
Spain, Germany, with all the rest of northern Europe, are 
envelopped in equal obscurity until the second century 
before the Christian aera. Rome herself, the conqueror 
and mistress of the civilised world, has nothing to tell us, 
which merits our belief until the third century before 
Christ : all the accounts of the 450 years preceding the 
Punic wars, are of so legendary a character that they con- 
vey no clear facts to the judgement, however they may 
furnish material for poetry to the imagination. Greece, 
also, the parent of European literature, becomes lost in 
darkness, anterior to the Trojan war ; and even that cele- 
brated campaign of Europe against Asia, has been so adorned 
by the poets, that beyond the simple fact of its having hap- 
pened, we cannot rely on any of the details which have 
come down to us. With the exception of Homer alone, 
who was a poet and lived 900 years before Christ, we 
possess no literary works except fragments and a few songs 
earlier than the History of Herodotus written about 500 
years only before the Christian era. But from what we 
know of Grecian letters, it is admitted by all that they owed 
their origin to Phoenicia, from whence civilization and 
learning — such as they were — are said to have been imported 

6* 



46 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

into Europe about 1300 years before Christ.* Yet of the 
written records of Phoenicia, it may with truth be said that 
hardly a particle survives, beyond what has been preserved 
in the Grecian writers, Herodotus, Diodorus and others. 

In harmony with this view is the fact that all the histories 
which we possess, to whatever nation they belong, become 
less credible in proportion to their antiquity ; not that the 
writers have invented the facts which they relate, but that 
those facts, having come down to them by oral tradition 
only, have been so altered in the transmission from one 
mouth to another, that it becomes difficult to discern their 
first and original character. We may form some idea of 
this process, if we compare two separate narratives of the 
same fact, happening in our own times. It is rarely that 
such accounts tally, even in the features of that which they 
describe. It may, even, be doubted, whether a single 
isolated event, witnessed by two different persons, would 
convey exactly the same idea to the minds of both : but 
when the two come to relate what they have seen, to a 
third person, we can hardly expect that the descriptions 
will coincide in every respect with the original or with one 
another. What then will be likely to happen in the case 
of events which occurred three thousand years ago, and 
which have been handed down for a long time by no other 
than the uncertain mouth of tradition ? We cannot be 
wrong in exacting the most scrupulous proof of a narrative 
which rests on such a basis : for though we may believe 
that he who has first written it, has faithfully told us what 
he heard from others, yet the picture, having been taken, 
not from the original, but from the last of a long succes- 
sion of pictures, each copied from the other, we can no 



* " B, C. 1313. Cadmus, a Phoenician, the founder of Thebes in Boeotia, 
introduces letters into Greece." Synchrom'stical tables of ancient History, Oxf. 
fol. 1815, p. 7. 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1. TRADITION. 47 

longer depend upon the likeness ; for, whilst it has lost 
some of its features by the treacherous inexactitude of one 
painter, it has probably gained others which the glowing 
imagination of a second has added, until at last it assumes 
an appearance entirely different from that which the pro- 
totype presented. To those who are conversant with the 
discrepancies, on the one hand, and the obscurity, on the 
other, which all Ancient History presents, the value of a 
Contemporary Writer becomes more and more apparent, 
and intermediate narratives, based upon tradition alone, 
sink proportionably in estimation. 

But these remarks apply with much greater force 
to Eastern than to European History ; and for a reason 
which Mr Clinton has stated with much justice and 
perspicuity in his Fasti Hellenici, [volume II, p. 373, 
3rd edit.'] : 

In the great monarchies of Asia, Oriental history has seldom been 
faithfully delivered by the Orientals themselves. In the ancient times, 
before the Greek kingdoms of Asia diffused knowledge and information, 
it is not likely that history would be undertaken by private individuals. 
The habits of the people, and the form of their governments, precluded 
all free inquiry and any impartial investigation of the truth. The writ- 
ten histories of past transactions would be contained in the archives of 
the state ; and these royal records, drawn up under the direction of the 
reigning despot, would deliver just snch a representation of facts as the 
government of the day thought fit to give ; just so much of the truth as 
it suited their purpose to communicate. Of the authority of such mat- 
erials for history we may judge, by comparing the account which has 
been transmitted to us from Ctesias of the rise of the Medes and the fall 
of Nineveh, with the very different account which Herodotus has left of 
the same transactions : the one utterly at variance with any thing pos- 
sible, convicted of absurdity in every circumstance by the plain evidence 
of Scripture, the other confirmed by the same authority in all the parti- 
culars both of facts and dates. And yet Ctesias drew his narrative 
from royal archives ; and in this part of his subject at least, had no 
temptation to wilful falsehood. 

It becomes necessary, therefore, to investigate the 
grounds upon which the Jews have claimed for the authors 



48 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [cHAP. 

of their scriptural books the character of contemporary 
writers,, and, to enter clearly into such an enquiry, it seems 
best to proceed seriatim through the several divisions of 
the Old Testament, beginning with the Five Books of the 
Pentateuch, said to have been written by Moses, who died 
about the year 1451 before Christ, just before the Israel- 
ites entered the land of Canaan. 

The ascription of the authorship of the Pentateuch to 
Moses the Hebrew legislator, seems to rest upon the fol- 
lowing arguments. 

1. Those books have always been supposed to have been 
written by Moses ; or, in other words, Universal Tradition 
asserts that Moses was the writer. 

2. It is said, on the authority of the books themselves, 
especially of Deuteronomy, chap, xxi, 26, where Moses is 
described as saying 

Take tliis booh of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the 
covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be therefor a witness against 
them, 

that these books, i. e. the Pentateuch, written by the hand of 
Moses, zvere placed by him, not long before his death, in the 
tabernacle, under the custody of the priests, where they were 
preserved, either in the original autograph, or in an authen- 
tic copy, for many hundred years, and so have descended to 
posterity. This is the argument to which the name of 
Internal Evidence has been affixed : and, in confirmation 
of this direct kind, have been cited certain texts of an indi- 
rect nature, implying that the same books were certainly 
written by some body who was situated like Moses. Thus, 
Genesis 1, 1 , " on this side Jordan " is quoted to prove 
that the books must have been written in the wilderness, 
and, therefore, by Moses. 

The first of these arguments is a question of fact, and 
must be determined, like all other facts, by positive evi- 
dence alone. 

Tradition originally implied oral transmission, as opposed 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1. TRADITION. 4$ 

to written testimony^ and was in use before the art of writing 
was known ; but when we consider the great obscurity and 
even the glaring absurdities in which all History, previous 
to the introduction of letters, is involved, we cannot, I 
think, admit the validity of a tradition which mounts back 
through the period of fourteen hundred and fifty years, 
the interval between the death of Moses and the Christian 
era. But it seems difficult to say what is the meaning of 
the expression that tradition has always named Moses as 
the author of the Pentateuch. Our examination is not of 
the books of Moses alone, but of the Hebrew Scriptures or 
Old Testament in its totality, of which I hold the Pen- 
tateuch to be merely a division or section, and not a 
separate work. Taken in this light, coupled with the fact 
that all the tradition is derived from the books themselves, 
surely such tradition cannot prove the antiquity of that 
book. For besides the tradition derived from the Old 
Testament, there is none other for a space of thirteen 
hundred years after the time of Moses. In other words no 
other book exists which mentions the Old Testament until 
thirteen hundred years from the time of Moses. But let 
us wave this point, and hear what evidence tradition will 
afford. As the tongues which were the successive vehicles 
of this tradition, are now all silent, we can have no other 
mode of determining what they said, than by referring to 
what has come down to us in a written form : for tradition 
is a being of a very unsubstantial character, and soon 
expires, unless its words are perpetuated by being copied 
before their meaning evaporates : like the Common Law 
of England, and the unwritten laws of states in general, 
which, though termed unwritten, were nevertheless, at a 
very early period, taken down in writing, and so lost their 
original form ; for assuredly no other process would have 
preserved the knowledge of them to posterity. 

In the case of a simple fact like that which we are now 
considering, namely that Moses was the author of the 

7 



50 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Pentateuch ; it does not appear how tradition can be an 
effective ground for such a belief ; for, if the first person, 
who originated the assertion, could produce no proof of 
what he said, it is unimportant whether it has been repeated 
ten or ten thousand times, or whether one year or a 
thousand have since elapsed. We must therefore qualify 
the argument of tradition, and consider it to mean that in 
all ages since the time of Moses the Pentateuch has been 
admitted to have been written by his hand. To establish 
such an assertion, it becomes necessary to shew that a series 
of writers, beginning in the time of Moses or at least 
in the next generation, have ascribed to him the authorship 
of the book in question. 

In support, then, of the claims of Moses, certain passages 
are quoted from the book of Joshua, which continues the 
Jewish History after the death of Moses, and it is thought 
that these passages allude to the Pentateuch, such as we 
now have it, proving thereby that this book was then in 
existence. Thus in Joshua ch. i, vv. 7, 8, we read the 
following exhortation addressed by the Lord to Joshua : 

Only be thou strong and very courageous ; that thou mayest observe 
to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded 
thee : turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest 
prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not 
depart out of thy mouth ; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, 
that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein : 
for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have 
good success. 

Again, at Joshua xxiii, 6, we read : 

Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written 
in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the 
right hand or to the left. 

In another passage of the same book, chap, viii, v. 34, we 
are told that Joshua, the successor of Moses, 

read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according 
to all that is written in the book of the law : there was not a word of 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1. TRADITION. 51 

all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the con- 
gregation of Israel. 

From which passage, according to Bishop Tomline, " it 
is evident, that the Book of the Law, or Pentateuch, existed 
in the time of Joshua, the successor of Moses.* " But this 
inference is certainly more than is warranted by the pre- 
mises. It may be readily admitted as an inference from 
the passage above quoted, that the Book of the Law existed 
in the time of Joshua, but that the Book of the Law was 
the Pentateuch as now exists, does not appear so clearly 
from the words of Joshua. In drawing this distinction, I 
would impress upon the reader's mind the necessity of his 
not confounding the authorship of a book with the truth 
of its contents. A book may be a true history, and yet 
not be the production of the author to whom it is ascribed. 
Further, it may contain the sentiments, laws, and deeds &c. 
of an eminent man, without having been written by him. 
Thus the Pentateuch may contain, and, I doubt not, does 
contain, the substance of all that Moses ever wrote — and is 
a correct account, as far as human things admit, of what 
Moses did and taught, but it does not follow from the 
words of Joshua above quoted, that the Book of the Law 
there mentioned is the very book which we now possess, 
called the Pentateuch, and subdivided into the five 
books called Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and 
Deuteronomy. 

An objection might indeed lie, as before observed, in 
conducting an enquiry like the present, which will extend 
to all the books of the Hebrew Canon, against receiving 
the testimony of Joshua at all ; for we know the Hebrew 
Canon in no other form than as an undivided work, and 
the continuity of its contents, together with the sequence 
observed between each part of it and that immediately 
preceding, as shewn in a former Chapter, seems to 

* Elements of Christian Theology, vol. i, p. 35, 



52 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES 



[CHAP, 



favour the idea that it was compiled in one continuous 
narrative. If so, the testimony of its various parts is the 
testimony of that man only, who compiled it, and in a 
chain of chronological evidence forms one link only, and 
not a series of links. It might therefore be argued that 
no evidence of fact from one part of it should be admitted 
in support of another, at least in such a question as that 
which now lies before us, namely that of the concurrent 
testimony of ages ; for it would be necessary, first, to prove 
that Joshua wrote the book which passes under his name 
or at all events that the book of Joshua was written in the 
age immediately succeeding that of Moses. If the book 
of Joshua was not written till some hundreds of years later, 
its testimony cannot be taken as contemporary or nearly 
contemporary testimony to the authorship of the books of 
Moses. But the weakness of the first link in the chain of 
universal consent is sufficiently apparent without breaking 
the chain altogether. I am content, at present, to rest my 
objection to the testimony of Joshua on the fact that the 
Book of the Law which he quotes is not proved to be the 
same as our Pentateuch : and I think that it can be satis- 
factorily proved to have been a different book from that 
which we now possess. 

In the mean time we may admit the statement in Joshua 
to prove that in his time there w r as a certain book called the 
Book of the Law r : but from this point the continuity of 
the witnesses is entirely broken ; for we in vain search the 
books of Judges,* Ruth, and the two books of Samuel for 
a continuation of the testimony not the most remote trace 
is to be found of the Book of the Law or its author. 

If it be conceded that these four last-mentioned books 



* We read in Judges i, 20. "And they gave Hebron unto Caleb as Moses 
said: and he expelled thence the three sons ofAnak." But this language is 
too vague to fix the identity of the book of the law with our Pentateuch ; it does 
not necessarily imply that Moses write any book at all. 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1. TRADITION. 53 

were written about the time of David's death, which hap- 
pened in the year b. c. 1015, — for this is the point at 
which the history contained in them terminates, — and if 
it appears that these books, the only surviving records of 
those five hundred years, make no mention either of the 
book of the Law, or of Moses its author, it necessarily 
results that the chain of testimony is interrupted, — fatally 
and hopelessly interrupted — and that we cannot, on the 
strength of it, prove the Pentateuch to be the Book of the 
Lav/, written by Moses. 

But the whole drift and force of our argument will be 
made more clear by adducing whatever testimony can be 
found in the remaining Hebrew writers and others, after 
which we may take a general view of the information 
which they give us. 

As the Second book of Samuel could not have been 
written before the reign of David, because it records the 
events of his old age, and some of the Psalms were written 
by David ; the author of these Psalms, namely David him- 
self, must be a little earlier in point of time than the 
author of the Second Book of Samuel ; but neither does 
David, in the Psalms, nor his son Solomon, in the books of 
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Canticles, make the most 
remote allusion to the Book of the Law, so that they 
furnish no link by which we may re-unite the broken chain 
of Universal consent. It is true that David, in the Psalms, 
mentions Moses, The following are all the passages in 
which his name occurs. 

Ps. lxxvii. 20. Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of 
Moses and Aaron. 

Ps. xcix, 6. Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel 
among them that call upon his name. 

Ps. cv, 26. He sent Moses his servant, and Aaron whom he had 
chosen. 

Ps. cvi, 16. They envied Moses also in the camp, and Aaron the 
saint of the Lord. 



54 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP, 

Ps. cvi, 23. Therefore lie said that he would destroy them, had not 
Moses his chosen stood before him iu the breach, to turn away his 
wrath, lest he should destroy them. 

Ps. cvi, 32. They angered him also at the waters of strife, so that it 
went ill with Moses for their sakes. 

The facts alluded to in these verses, certainly are found 
in our Pentateuch ; but many books exist, containing 
histories of the same facts, without ever having been 
thought to be the same books. In fact we have seen in 
chap. 5, that the writer of the Pentateuch quotes other 
books, about the same transactions which himself records. 

The au hor of the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and 
Canticles, who is generally considered to be king Solomon, 
makes no mention either of the. book of the Law or of 
Moses its author. 

This observation brings us down to the year 1055 when 
Solomon began to reign over Israel, but with the exception 
of the poetical books, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and 
Canticles, generally ascribed to Solomon and his father 
David, we have no written records of any kind for nearly 
300 years, until the time of Jonah who is supposed to be 
the earliest of the Prophets. But the book of Jonah 
makes no mention of either Moses or of the Law, and 
none of the other prophets have the most remote allusion to 
the subject, except Jeremiah and Malachi, in whose book 
of prophecies we find the following passages : 

The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Hear ye 
the words of this covenant, and speak unto the men of Judah, and to 
the inhabitants of Jerusalem ; and say thou unto them, Thus sayeth 
the Lord God of Israel ; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words 
of this covenant, which I commanded your fathers in the day that I 
brought them forth out of the land of Egypt. Jerem. xi, 1 — 4. 

Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before 
me, yet my mind could not be toward this people. Jerem. xv, 1. 

Remember ye the law of Moses ray servant, which I commanded unto 
him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Ma- 
lachi, iv, 4. 



CLAIMS OF MOSES 1. TRADITION. 55 

These words, however, give us no assistance in identify- 
ing the writings of Moses with the Pentateuch which we 
now have : and no other testimony can be found until we 
come to about the 37th year of Jehoiakin king of Judah, 
i. e. about the year 562 before Christ. As this is the last 
year mentioned in the books of Kings, it is clear that the 
writer of them could not have lived * before that time. 
Concurrent with the two books of Kings are those of 
Chronicles, which are admitted to have been written by 
Ezra f after the Jewish captivity, i. e. about 500 years 
before Christ. 

But between the time of Joshua, whose testimony to the 
existence of a Book of the Law has been admitted, on the 
supposition that he wrote the book which passes by his 
name, and the year 582 before Christ when the author of 
the books of Kings lived, is an interval of nearly 900 years, 
and, it will be borne in mind, as far as we have yet pro- 
ceeded, no mention has been made by any intermediate 
writer of the Book of the Law, much less has any expres- 
sion been discovered, by which it can be shewn that the 
book of the Law which they had then, and the Pentateuch 
which we have now, are one and the same book. 

Let us, however, now see in what manner the writers of 
the books of Kings and Chronicles speak of the Book of 
the Law or of Moses, in the course of their narratives, 

* I am justified in saying that the books of Kings were written after the Babylo- 
nish Captivity, by the admission of all the commentators. Take for instance the 
following passage from Bishop Tomline's Elements of Christ. Theol. vol. i, p. 25 : 

" It seems probable, therefore, that the books of Kings and Chronicles do not 
contain a complete compilation of the entire works of each contemporary prophet, 
but are rather an abridgment of their several labours, and of other authentic pub- 
lic writings, digested by Ezra after the captivity, with an intention to display the 
sacred history under one point of view, and hence it is that they contain some 
expressions, which evidently result from contemporary description, and others 
which as clearly argue them to have been composed long after the occurrences 
which they relate. 

f The book of Ezra is, in fact, no more* than a continuation of the Second 
Book of Chronicles : singularly enough the last two verses of Chronicles are the 
first two of Ezra and there is no break in the narrative. 



5G THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. ["CHAP. 

wherein they relate the transactions of the two Jewish 
kingdoms from the time of David and Solomon down to 
the reign of Jehoiachim, and from that time, as recorded 
in Chronicles alone, to the end of the Babylonish Captivity. 
The first passages in chronological order occur in 
Chronicles : David alludes both to the Law, and to the ark 
of the covenant, but not to the book of the Law. He 
says to his son Solomon : 

Only the Lord give thee wisdom and understanding, and give thee 
charge concerning Israel, that thon mayest keep the law of the Lord 
thy God. Then shalt thou prosper, if thou takest heed to fulfil the 
statutes and judgments which the Lord charged Moses with concern- 
ing Israel. I Chron. xxii, 12 — 13. 

He addresses the princes of Israel in these words : 

Now set your heart and your soul to seek the Lord your God ; 
arise therefore, and build ye the sauctuary of the Lord God, to bring 
the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and the holy vessels of God, 
into the house that- is to be built to the name of the Lord. I Chron. 
xxii, 1 9. 

In the First book of Kings, ch* viii, v. 53. occurs the 
following passage in the thanksgiving to the Lord which 
the writer puts into the mouth of King Solomon : 

For thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, 
to be thine inheritance, as thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy 
servant, when thou broughtest our fathers out of Egypt, Lord God. 

Also, in v. 56, of the same chapter : 

Blessed be the Lord that hath given rest unto his people Israel, 
according to all that he promised ! there hath not failed one word of all 
his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant. 

In I Kings ii, 3, David cautions Solomon his son : 

And keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to 
keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his 
testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest 
prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turn est. 

II Kings xiv, 6. But the children of the murderers he [Amaziah] 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1. TRADITION. 57 

slew not : according unto that which is written in the boo"k of the law 
of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not 
be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to deatli for the 
fathers ; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. 

The corresponding account, in II Chron. xxv, 4, is 
almost in the same words : 

But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in 
the book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers 
shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, 
but every man shall die for his own sin. 

The name of Moses is mentioned in II Chron. xxiv, 6, 
under the reign of Joash, but not the book of the law : 

And the king called for Jehoiada the chief, and said unto him, Why 
hast thou not required of the Levites to bring in out of Judah and out 
of Jerusalem the collection, according to the commandment* of Moses the 
servant of the Lord, and of the congregation of Israel, for the tabernacle 
of witness ? 

In the reign of Hezekiah, a solemn festival was held in 
Jerusalem, and the law of Moses is mentioned by the writer 
of Chronicles, II, xxx, 15 — 16 : 

Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second 
month : and the priests and Levites were ashamed, and sanctified them- 
selves, and brought in the burnt-offerings into the house of the Lord. 
And they stood in their place after their manner, according to the law of 
Moses the man of God : the priests sprinkled the blood, which they 
received of the hand of the Levites. 

In the corresponding chapters of the book of Kings, we 
find no notice of this festival, or of the law of Moses. 

These texts require no comment: they contain mere 
notices of the book of the law, in connection with festivals 
and other events which took place in the reigns of the 
different kings of Israel and Judah. But the reader must 
continually be reminded that the histories in which these 
notices occur were not written or compiled until after the 

* These words are not in the Hebrew. 



58 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Babylonish captivity, and consequently they furnish the 
testimony of that man only, who compiled them, at the 
distance of 900 years after the time of Moses. His words, 
moreover, do not indicate that the book of the law, 
as it then existed, was the same as our Pentateuch, but 
only that there was at that time in existence a book of the 
law, which passed under the name of Moses. 

There are however, some remarkable passages in the 
books of Chronicles and of Kings, which have not been 
noticed, because they are of a very different character 
from the foregoing, for they seem to prove that the 
book of the Law was nothing more or less than the two 
tables of stone which God delivered to Moses on Mount 
Sinai. The first passage is as follows : 

And all die elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the 
ark. And they brought up the ark of the Lord, and the tabernacle of 
the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even 
those did the priests and the Levites bring up. 

And king Solomon and all the congregation of Israel, that were 
assembled unto him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and 
oxen, that could not be told nor numbered for multitude. 

And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto 
his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, 
even under the wings of the cherubim s. .For the cherubims 
spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims 
covered the ark and the staves thereof above. And they drew out the 
staves, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place before 
the oracle, and they were not seen without : and there they are unto 
this day. There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, 
which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant 
with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land, of 
Egypt. I Kings, vhi, 3 — 9. 

These words form part of the narrative concerning the 
building of the Temple and the arrangement of the sacred 
utensils and other furniture with which it was stored. 
Among the things, Solomon then placed in it, was the ark 
of the covenant, which had formerly been kept in the 
Tabernacle before the Temple was built. 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1. TRADITION. 59 

It was in the side of this very ark of the covenant that 
Moses commanded the book of the Law to be placed, as 
appears by Deuteronomy, ch. xxxi, v. 26, and yet, whe 1 
Solomon caused the ark of the covenant to be removed 
into the Temple, it is expressly stated in the passage which 
has been just quoted, that there was then " nothing in the 
ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at 
Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children 
of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt." How 
then is this discrepancy to be explained? If Moses put 
both the two tables of stone and the book of the law into 
the ark, and only the former were still there in the time of 
Solomon, it is manifest that the book of the law must have 
been removed in the interval ; probably, it may be said, by 
the Philistines when they carried away the ark among the 
spoils of the defeated Israelites. If this be so, when was 
the book of the law restored ? If it was never restored, how 
did the Israelites obtain the copy which we shall presently 
notice as having been carried round Judah by the order of 
king Jehoshaphat, and afterwards discovered in the temple 
in the reign of king Josiah ? It may, also, be asked, why the 
Philistines did not extract the two tables of stone also ; for 
these were still safe in the time of Solomon. 

To these perplexing questions a simple answer may be 
given, which will solve the whole difficulty. The two 
tables of stone were the book of the law given by Moses, 
and besides them was no other : as I shall endeavour to 
prove more plainly in a future chapter. At present we will 
return to the point from which we have digressed, and 
proceed to shew that the writer of the books of kings 
makes no mention of the book of the law, which will 
enable us to identify it with the existing Pentateuch, but 
rather that his words exclude the possibility of such a book 
having then existed. 

It has been observed that there are certain passages con- 



60 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

nected with the notice of the book of the law, which bear 
upon our present argument. The first has been produced ; 
the second is as follows : Solomon is still supposed to be 
speaking : 

And the Lord hath performed his word that he spake, and I am risen 
up in the room of David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel, as 
the Lord promised, and have built an house for the name of the Lord 
God of Israel. And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the 
covenant of the Lord, which he made with our fathers, when he brought 
them out of the land of Egypt. T Kings viii, 20 — 21. 

This is a most important passage: it in every respect 
corroborates the explanation which has been given of the 
former passage : in the one we read that the two tables of 
stone alone were in the ark ; in the other it is said that the 
covenant of the Lord was therein. 

The two tables of stone were, therefore, the same thing 
as the covenant ; the ark is from them called the ark of the 
covenant ; it is also called the ark of the testimony. The 
book of the Law also is called the book of the testimony ; 
and the whole matter is plain and intelligible ; the Lord 
gave two tables, containing a summary of his command- 
ments, to be the basis of the Jewish constitution and the 
foundation of all their morals and government. As a fitting 
receptacle for these KeifirjXia or heir looms of the nation, an 
area, ark, coffer, or chest, was constructed, and this chest 
was called the ark of the covenant, because it contained the 
two tables aforesaid, and nothing besides them. If the 
Pentateuch had been in existence, it would have made the 
two tables of stone no longer necessary : they would have 
been a cumbersome and useless load. 

If, however, it should be argued that Solomon may 
have placed the book of the Law in the Temple, distinct 
from the Ark of the Covenant, I would ask where is the 
notice of this fact ? It is impossible to prove a negative in 
any other way than by shewing that there is no proof of 
such a thing having taken place. But, if Solomon placed 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1, TRADITION. 61 

the book of the Law in the Temple, so valuable a treasure 
might surely have been worth mentioning among the 
lamps, tongs, and other furniture which was then placed 
there. In the seventh chapter of the First Book of Kings, 
and the 51st verse, we read: 

So was ended all the work that King Solomon made for the house of 
the Lord. And Solomon brought in the things which David his 
father had dedicated ; even the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, did 
he put among the treasures of the house of the Lord.* 

But the book of the law, it seems, was not placed 
there ; at least, there is no record of its having been so 
placed. It is more merciful towards the judgment of the 
wise Solomon to conclude that it was not in existence, 
than that, being in existence, this imperishable record was 
less esteemed than the silver and gold, and the lamps and 
the tongs with which the perishable fabric of the Temple 
was embellished. 

About seventy years after the death of Solomon, 
Jehoshaphat was reigning over the kingdom of Judah. 
His prudent measures for reforming and instructing his 
subjects are related in II Chron. xvii, 7 — 9. 

Also in the third year of his reign he [Jehoshaphat] sent to his 
princes, even to Benhail, and to Obadiah, and to Zechariah, and to 
Nethaneel, and to Michaiah, to teach in the cities of Jndah. And with 
them he sent Levites, even Shemaiah, and Nethaniah, and Zebadiah, 
and Asahel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehonathan, and Adonijah, and 
Tobijah, and Tob-adonijah, Levites ; and with them Elishama and 

* See the parallel passage in II Chronicles, iv, 19 — 23. 
" And Solomon made all the vessels that were for the house of God, the 
golden altar also, and the tables whereon the shew-bread was set : 
moreover the candlesticks with their lamps, that they should burn after 
the manner before the oracle, of pure gold : And the flowers, and the 
lamps, and the tongs, made he of gold, and that perfect gold : and the 
snuffers, and the basons, and the spoons, and the censers of pure gold : 
and the entry of the house, the inner doors thereof for the most holy 
place, and the doors of the house of the temple, were of gold." 



62 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Jehoram, priests. And they taught in Judah, and had the book of the 
law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of 
Judah, and taught the people. 

The emissaries of the king, it is here stated, had the book 
of the Law. Was there then only one copy of this book, 
and that the original which had been given by the hand 
of Moses? It would appear from this verse (which how- 
ever has no corresponding notice in the books of Kings), 
that there was no other copy of the book of law, or the 
teachers who went through the country would not have 
been under the necessity of carrying it with them. Here 
too, if we suppose, as has been before repeatedly observed, 
that the book of the law was nothing more than the two 
tables of stone, all difficulties vanish ; and the history is 
reduced to harmony with our antecedent notions respec- 
ting those primitive times, when writing consisted rather in 
monuments and inscriptions upon stone than in the more 
refined usage of books and alphabets, which, I purpose, in 
a future chapter, to shew, were not then invented. 
Meanwhile let us examine the last passages in the books of 
Kings and Chronicles, which mention the book of the law, 
the subject of our present enquiry. 

The occasion on which the subject is revived is curious 
and has given rise to much discussion. The writer of the 
second book of Kings describes it as follows : 

It came to pass in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, that the king 
sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the 
house of the Lord, saying " Go up to Hilkiah the high-priest, that he 
may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord which 
the keepers of the door have gathered of the people : and let them deli- 
ver it into the hand of the doers of the work, that have the oversight of 
the house of the Lord : and let them give it to the doers of the work 
which is in the house of the Load, to repair the breaches of the house, 
unto cai'penters and builders, and masons, and to buy timber and hewn 
stone to repair the house/'' Howbeit there was no reckoning made with 
them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt 
faitnfully. 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1, TRADITION. 63 

And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Sliaplian the scribe, I have found 
the book of the law in the house of the Lord : and Hilkiah gave the book 
to Sliaplian, and he read it. And Shaphan the scribe came to the king 
and brought the king word again, and said "Thy servants have gathered 
the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the 
hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the 
house of the Lord." And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, say- 
ing " Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book ."" And Shaphan read 
it before the king, and it came to pass, when the king had heard the 
words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes : and the king 
commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and 
Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiaha servant 
of the king's, saying, " Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the 
people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is 
found : for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, 
because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to 
do according unto all that which is writlen concerning u . [xx'i, 3 — 1*5.] 

In the next chapter, (i. e. II Kings xxii,) is an account of 
the Passover which was held by Josiah, in consequence of 
this discovery of the book of the law. The chapter opens 
with these words : 

And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah 
and of Jerusalem. And the king went up into the honse of the Lord, 
and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, 
and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and 
great ; and he read in heir ears all the words of the book of the covenant 
which was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood by a 
pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord and 
to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all 
their heart and all their soul, to perform the w r orcls of this covenant that 
were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant. 

The whole of this narrative is confirmed by the writer 
of the second book of Chronicles, ch. xxxiv, v. 14, with the 
addition that the book of the law then found was given by 
Moses" or, according to the marginal translation, given by 
the hand of Moses, 

The Passover, also, in described in a similar manner, and 



64 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

almost in the very same words, and the book that had just 
been found, is said to have been the model by which the 
ceremonies were regulated. 

II Chron. xxxv, 11-12. xind they killed the passover and the priests 
sprinkled the blood from their hands, and the Levites flayed them. 
And they removed the burnt offerings, that they might give according 
to the divisions of the families of the people, to offer unto the Lord, as 
it is written in the book of Moses. 

These then are all the notices which we find in the 
books of Chronicles and Kings, of the book of the law, 
given by the hand of Moses for the use of the Israelitish 
people. They may be analysed as follows. 

In all those verses where no historical fact is related 
concerning the very volume itself, i. e. where there is merely 
a quotation from it, as in the words, " as it is written in 
the law of Moses," we can derive no evidence whatever, 
concerning the nature of the book ; because the writer of 
the history, living after the Babylonish captivity, and hav- 
ing the book of the law before him, may be supposed to 
have himself inserted these verses for the benefit of his 
readers. But from the relation of the events which hap- 
pened in the reign of Jehoshaphat and Josiah, connected 
with the silence observed concerning any book of the law 
at all in the reign of Solomon, we are led, I think, to 
believe that the book of the law was only the tables of 
stone delivered by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. The 
facts are briefly these. In the reign of Solomon we have 
positive evidence that the two tables of stone were still pre- 
served, but not the book of the law. In the reign of 
Jehoshaphat, 70 years later, the law is carried round the 
country for the general edification of the people. In the 
reign of Josiah, the law is found and revived. If these 
historical facts are correctly related, I cannot conceive any 
other inference to be drawn from them than that the book 
of the law and the two tables of stone were the same, and 
that besides them there was no other. 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1. TRADITION. 65 

But whatever curious enquiries may be based upon these 
facts, whether the book of the law was different or not 
from the tables of stone, it is almost certain that there was 
but one copy in existence during the whole duration of 
the Israelitish kingdoms, and nothing has yet been adduced 
to prove that it was the same book, which we now call the 
Pentateuch. Indeed the writer who records these facts, 
living after the Babylonish captivity, can give us evidence 
only for the opinions which prevailed in his own age, and 
furnishes no link to re-unite the chain of tradition which 
has been broken for 900 years since the time of Joshua. 

What a long period — nine hundred years ! Nations have 
arisen and past away : revolutions upon revolutions have 
been made and again forgotten ; empires have been formed 
and perished in half that time : languages have changed so 
totally that if those who lived at the two extremities of such 
a space could be brought together, they could neither con- 
verse with one another, nor have two ideas in common. 
Scarcely have eight hundred years elapsed since the Norman 
Conquest, and yet what changes have happened even in 
the comparatively stable and civilized monarchy of 
England. What then must be the case with the nation of 
the Israelites, a fugitive and half -barbarous people, escaped 
out of Egypt, governed first by a sort of theocratic chief- 
tains called Judges, then a monarchy, and finally divided 
into hostile kingdoms ; and during the whole nine hundred 
years rent in pieces by intestine convulsions, such as never 
before or since distracted so small a community. 

And, what strengthens this argument tenfold, is the fact 

that this long period of nine hundred years lies wholly in 

the regions of obscurity and not of civilization, it ends 

before civilization and learning commenced. In every 

country of the world, few records have been preserved, 

except the works of Homer and Hesiod, as early as even 

the end of this period of nine hundred years. It may 

with reason be doubted whether the Pentateuch or anj 

9 



66 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [ciIAX\ 

other volume copied by the pen, and of equal size, could 
be preserved entire and in its original state under such 
circumstances. But this is not my present argument ; 
I only contend that the silence of nine hundred years altoge- 
ther refutes the argument of that Universal Consent on which 
is based the belief that the book of the law, or the book of 
Moses, is the same as the Pentateuch which we now have. 

Let us, however, hear what Dr Kennicott, the commen- 
tator on the Hebrew Bible, says concerning the book of 
the law found in the Temple in the 18th year of King 
Josiah. 

The law, after being so long concealed, would be unknown to very 
many of the Jews ; and thus the solemn reading of it by Josiah would 
awaken his own and the people's earnest attention. The copy produced 
was probably the original, * written by Moses, winch would excite still 
greater veneration. The distance of time was not such as to make it 
incredible that the copy now found was that written by Moses himself : 
for there was certainly not a greater interval from the death of Moses to 
the death of Josiah than 950 years ; and we have manuscripts existing 
among us at the present day of greater age than this. 

It is true, as the writer of this passage remarks, that we 
have manuscripts which are more than 950 years old. 
Perhaps in all the British islands there are twenty manus- 
cripts as old as the 8th and 9th centuries after Christ : but 
I do not allow this comparsion to be a fair one. Four 
hundred years ago the art of printing was invented, and 



* The following passage from Milman's History of the Jews, i, p. 316, shews 
that the able author of that work also considered the book of the law, found by 
Hilkiah, to have been the original copy delivered by Moses , or, at least, he 
seems to take it for granted according to the opinion which generally prevails. 

"Josiah surpassed even his most religious predecessors, Asa, Jenoshaphat, 
Azariah or Hezekiah, in zeal for the reformation- of the national religion. His 
first care was to repair the temple. "While the work was proceeding, the king 
and the whole nation heard with the utmost exultation that Hiikiah, the high- 
priest, had discovered the original copy of the Law. But so little were its real 
contents known, that on its first reading, the king was struck with terror at its 
awful denunciations. The book was read in public ; Josiah and all the nation 
renewed the solemn covenant with their God." 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1. TRADITION. 67 

from that time manuscripts began to be less used : tliey 
have consequently been preserved as curiosities, and are no 
longer liable to be worn out by frequent use : add to which 
that there were several hundred convents in the British isles 
as early as eleven centuries ago, inhabited by thousands of 
men having little else to do but copy manuscripts. The 
whole of the last thousand years has also been marked by 
a taste for a certain sort of literature, such as it was, and 
all the countries in Europe have been ocupied in a similar 
way : thereby producing a mutual encouragement and 
emulation in the multiplication of manuscripts. But in 
the case of the Israelites, it was far otherwise : all their his- 
tory during the first half of the nine hundred years is 
described in the book of Judges, and it gives us a most ex- 
traordinary picture of barbarous tribes, engaged in nothing 
but seditions and intestine wars. In reading that history, 
we cannot find the briefest interval, between the tales of 
blood, for learning or the police arts : books seem to have 
been utterly unknown, and even the Book of the Law, 
to which the Jews in more recent times have shewn such 
reverence, is not even once mentioned, either by David, 
Solomon, or any of the early Jewish writers during the 
whole space of 900 years from the time of Joshua to the 
end of the Babylonish captivity, 500 years only before the 
Christian era. 

Let us notice the back-ground of this picture. Ezra 
the scribe was a ready writer conversant with the law of 
God. Nehemiah, also, was an able and learned teacher 
of the Jews, after the Babylonish captivity : and in all the 
writings, which they are generally admitted to have com- 
posed, the book of the law is mentioned, as becomes so 
valuable a treasure, This will be evident from the ensu- 
ing extracts taken from the books which pass under the 
names of Ezra and Nehemiah. 

Ezra hi, 2. Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozacbk, and his 
brethren the priest, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and his brethren, 



68 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHA1\ 

and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings 
thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God. 

vii, 6. This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready 

scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given : 
and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the 
Lord his God upon him. 

Nehemiah, i, 7. We have dealt very corruptly against thee, and 
have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the judgements, 
which thou commandedst thy servant Moses, 

viii. 1 — 3. And all the people gathered themselves 



together as one man into the street that vvas before the water-gate ; and 
they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses 
w r hich the Lord had commanded to Israel. And Ezra 

the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and 
w r oman, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day 
of the seventh month. And he read therein before the street that was 
before the water-gate from the morning until mid-day, before the men 
and the women, and those that could understand : and the ears of all 
the people were attentive unto the book of the law. 

' viii, 7. Also Jeshua and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, 



Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, 
Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the 
law, and the people stood in their place. So they read in the book in 
the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to 
understand the reading 

And they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded 
by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast 
of the seventh month : And that they should publish and proclaim in 
all their cities, and m Jerusalem, saying "Go forth unto the mount and 
fetch olive-branches, and pine-branches, and myrtle-branches, and palm- 
branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written. 
So the people went forth, and brought them, and made themselves 
booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in 
the courts of the house of God, and in the street of the water-gate and 
in the street of the gate of Ephraim. And all the congregation of them 
that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under 
the booths : for since the days of Joshua the son of Xun unto that day 
had not the children of Israel done so : and there was very great 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1. TRADITION.. 69 

gladness. Also clay by clay from the first clay unto the last day, he read in 
the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and 
on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner. 



From the Jewish writers we must now turn to the Greeks 
and Romans, among whom literature had hardly hegun to 
make its appearance, at the very time that the canon of 
the Jewish Scriptures was brought to its termination. 
Malachi, the last of the prophets, wrote the short book 
which bears his name about the year b. c. 400. No Gre- 
cian writer, however, has mentioned the Israelites or their 
sacred books until long after that period. Even the con- 
quests of Alexander did not open any communication 
between his countrymen and the Jews. It is in the reign 
of the Ptolemies, kings of Egypt, that the two nations are 
first brought into connection. The Bible was then [about 
the year b. c. 280], as we have seen in a previous chapter, 
translated into Greek for the use of the Jews who lived in 
Alexandria, and were better acquainted with the Greek 
than the Hebrew language. This is sufficient to account 
for the appearance of a Greek translation of the Bible at 
so early a date as the beginning of the third century before 
Christ : but the Hebrews have wished us to believe that 
the execution of that laborious work is due principally to 
the admiration which King Ptolemy felt towards the sub- 
lime truths contained in their sacred books. It is impossi- 
ble at this distance of time, to determine how far these 
motives operated, for not a particle of evidence has come 
down to us : neither has any Grecian or Roman writer 
made the most remote allusion to Moses, or his writings, 
and few of them have even mentioned the name of the 
Israelitish people, until about the time of the Christian era, 



70 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [cHAP. 

when Herod the Great was made king of Judea, and kept 
up a constant correspondence with his friend Augustus 
and the court of Rome. 

One of the most intimate friends of Herod was Nicolaus 
of Damascus, a peripatetic philosopher, poet and historian 
of considerable eminence. Of his extensive works nothing 
but fragments has survived : but extracts from his writings 
have been preserved by Josephus, in one of which refer- 
ence is made to Moses the lawgiver of the Jews, and his 
writings. I subjoin the whole extract in the original 
Greek together with an English translation : 

Tov Se KaraKkvo-fjiov tovtov kclI rr}$ Xdpvatco? jxepLV^vrat iravres 
ol tcl$ Bap/Saptfca^ IcrToplas dvayeypacplre^, aiv iart fcal Bypcoaao^ a 
XakSalos • Scrjyovfievo^ <yap ra ire pi rbv KarafcXva/jubv ovrco ttov 
Bietfeicn, 

AeysTcctr ds xcu too t:\oiov ev xrj *Apfj,evlci 7rpo$ too opet rcuv KopZu- 
txlcov 'in (J-epoe r< sivou, xai xoplgeiv tivoLs tyj$ ao-^aXrav cc^oapouvrug.. 
Xpuuvrai he /xaAjcrra ol kvftpumoi too xo[Ai^O(Aevcp 7rpo$ ravg aitoTPO- 

Mi/jLvrjrat, Be tovtwv teal 'Iepcovv/jios 6 rrjv apyaioXoyiav tt)v <I>otvt- 
klktjv o-vyypatya/jLevQS, /cat Mvacreas Be, /cat aXXoi 7r\elov<;. Kal 
NtKoXaos Be 6 Aa/jbacrfcijvbs ev rfj ivevrjfCOCTTf) Kal €Ktt) /3i/3\(p lo-ropet 
nrepl avrcov, Xeycov ovtg)^ • 

' Ecttiv vnep tyjV Mwvuijtx fxeya. ogoc xoltu ryv 'Appei/lav, Baptg Keyo- 
psvov, elg o 7ro>\ov$ o-u[x(puyovTag l7r* tov xotTtxxXucrfjiOU \6yos eyi\ 
7repio-voQriVOLiy xai tivol stt) \otgvaxo$ o^ou^svov en) tyjv uxpuipettzv 6xe"i\on y 
xa) tol As/vf/ava roov %v\oov ew\ 7ro\v (TwQyjVou ' yevoiro S' av outo§, ovtivoc 
xtx) M-Vovo-Yis aveypu^ev 6 'lovdalcov vopoQeTYi;,* 

All those who have written the barbarian (i. e. profane) histories, 
mention this deluge : one of them is Berosus the Claldaean; in relating 
about the deluge he proceeds thus : 

It is said that there is still remaining a portion of the ark in Armenia, at the 
mountain of the Corduagans, and that people take "off and carry away with 
them the bitumen : using what they carry away, principally as charms. 

Hieronymus, who compiled the archaeology of Phoenicia, and Mnaseas, 
and several others mention these things. Nicolaus of Damascus, also, 
in his 96th book, speaks of them thus : 

* Ant. Jud. lib. i, cap. 3. 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 1. TRADITION. 71 

There is above the Minyad a great mountain, in Armenia, called Baris, to 
which it is said that many fled in the time of the deluge and were saved, and that 
one of them, floating in a chest, came to land at its top, and that fragments of 
its timbers were long preserved. This may be the man whom Moses the lawgiver 
of the Jews mentioned. 

Contemporary with Nicolaus was Alexander Polyhistor, 
quoted by Josephus.* 

Maprvpet Se jjlov T(p Xoycp kcli 'AXetjavSpos 6 Uokviarcop, \iycov 

OVTCDS ' 

KXso^yj[X,og 8e <pY\<i\v 6 7rpo$Y}Tr}c, 6 xou MaA^oj, 6 \<TTopcHiV ra nsp) 
'lou$a,loov, xaOwg xou Moqu(tyi$ l(rrop^(rev 6 vo[ao§styj; auTaov, on ex. t% 
y^arovpus 'AfipufAco eysvovTo woildsg Ixavoi. 

What 1 have said is confirmed by Alexander Polyhistor, whose words 
are these : 

It is said by Cleodemus the prophet, who is also called Malchas, and who 
wrote about the Jews, in the same way as Moses their law-giver has recorded, 
that Abraham had many children by Keturah. 

These extracts may suffice as specimens of the notice 
which profane writers have taken of the Jewish Scriptures. 
To those which I have here given might be added a few 
lines from Diodorus Siculus and others, but as none of 
them lived earlier than about the beginning of the Christian 
era, their evidence has nothing to do with our present 
subject, which is to shew, not that the Old Testament did 
not exist before the Christian era, but that it was compiled 
since the termination of the Babylonish captivity. 

After the beginning of the Christian era, we have many 
notices both of Moses and of the Pentateuch, or at least 
of a book, which at that time existed and which professed 
to have Moses for its author. Strabo and Galen among 
the Greeks, Justin, Pliny and Tacitus among the Latins, 
make frequent allusion to the book of Moses, besides many 
other writers whose testimony it is unnecessary to adduce. 
It was to be expected that the introduction of Christianity 



* Ant. Jud. lib. i, cap. 15. 



72 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP 

into Europe would bring with it a knowledge of the Hebrew 
Scriptures, on which Christianity is based, as on a founda- 
tion stone. It was also to be anticipated that all later 
writers who should mention the Pentateuch would speak 
of it as the book of Moses, because for a long time previous 
to the Christian era the Jews themselves considered the 
Pentateuch to be the original work as it came from the 
hand of Moses. It is not essential to our argument to 
follow the chain of evidence which later writers furnish, 
because it cannot be denied that the Pentateuch existed 
long before this latter half of the chain of evidence com- 
mences. I have endeavoured to shew, not that the chain 
of Universal consent is broken after it reaches the period 
of the Christian era, but that it cannot be traced during 
the fifteen hundred years which elapsed before the 
Christian era, and after the death of Moses. It may be 
useful, in order to make this the more forcible, to recapi- 
tulate the heads of our enquiry, i. e. to recapitulate the 
several notices of Moses and the book in question, which 
occur in the Hebrew Bible between the death of Moses 
and the last of the sacred writers. 

1. It has been admitted that a Book of the law is twice 
named in the Book of Joshua, which is said to have been 
written in the next generation after Moses. I have reser- 
ved the right to shew hereafter that the book of Joshua 
was not written until several hundred years after the date 
usually ascribed to it. 2. The second link in the chain is 
found in the author of the Books of Kings and Chronicles 
which were written about the time of the Babylonish cap- 
tivity : i. e. 900 years after the death of Moses. 

These are the only two Jewish writers who mention the 
book of the law at all for the long period of 900 years, and 
probably much longer ! 

But the argument derived from this fact, must be redu- 
ced to still narrower dimensions ; for the authors of Kings 
and Chronicles describe facts, which prove, to a demon- 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES— 1. TRADITION. 73 

s tration, that the Pentateuch which we now have is not the 
book of the law, as given by Moses. They tell us that 
when Solomon conveyed the ark of the covenant, in which 
the book of the law was kept, into the temple, there was 
nothing in it but the two tables of stone which had been 
given by God to Moses. These tables, therefore, were the 
book of the law, and no other book of the law is mentioned 
as having existed at that time. They tell us, secondly, that 
in the time of Josiah the Book of the law was found by the 
priests whilst they were cleansing and purifying the Temple. 
If any other book were the subject of these observations, it 
would be contended that the authorship of it belonged 
to that period of time when it was described as hav- 
ing been found in the temple by the priests in the reign 
of Josiah, or even to a later, but certainly not to an earlier 
period. 

But there are reasons, to be hereafter stated, why this 
inference is not admissble in the present instance. It may 
rather be conjectured that the two tables are what was 
found in the reign of Josiah, or perhaps some other records, 
which may have lain undiscovered in the Temple for 
many years ; but still not the Pentateuch, in the form which 
it now bears. 

With these observations I shall conclude the examina- 
tion of the witnesses who are supposed to furnish that 
universal consent for the belief that the Pentateuch is the 
original work of Moses. 



10 



74 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 



CHAPTER 11. 

Examination of the inteenal evidence which the Pentateuch 

is said to furnish for the belief that it was written, in 

its present form, by moses. 



ig, in the preceding chapter, examined the argu- 

1 Tradition or Universal Consent, which is adduced 

s a basis for the belief that the Pentateuch was written 

, let us now proceed to investigate the second 

argument which has been brought forward in the same 

cause, namely that of the Internal Evidence which the 

Pentateuch itself furnishes. 

This part of our subject is liable to an antecedent dif- 
ficulty, resulting from our imperfect knowledge of the 
language in which the books of the Old Testament are 
written, and the comparatively few persons who possess 
even a superficial acquaintance with it. It is necessary 
to take many interpretations of individual passages upon 
trust, aided only by such occasional verification as may 
result from comparing the testimony which men of diffe- 
rent opinions will supply. 

An illustration of my meaning on this point is furnished 
by a passage which I shall transcribe from Bishop 
Tomline's Elements of Christian Theology, vol. i, p. 74. 

It is sometimes asserted that there is a sameness of language and 
style in the different books of the Old Testament, which is not compati- 
ble with the different ages usually assigned to them, and thence an 
inference is drawn unfavourable to the authenticity of these books, 
and particularly to that of the Pentateuch. 

To this objection we may answer that it is founded upon an untrue 



11.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 2. INTERNAL EVIDENCE, 75 

assertion ; those who are best acquainted with the original writings 
of the Old Testament agree, that there is a marked difference in the 
style and language of its several authors ; and one learned man in 
particular concludes from that difference, " that it is certain the five 
books, which are ascribed to Moses, were not written in the time of 
David, the Psalms of David in the age of Josiah, nor the Prophecies of 
Isaiah in the time of Malachi." 

Contradictory assertions, unsupported by evidence, or 
only supported by evidence which nine-tenths of mankind 
are unable to verify, never elicit truth, and must be dis- 
carded from an inquiry which has truth alone for its 
object. Setting aside, therefore, for the present, the style 
of the language in which the Pentateuch is written, let us 
enquire what historical or other evidence it furnishes by 
which we may determine to what age this venerable 
literary monument owes its origin. 

It has been inferred from certain passages in the five 
books, commonly called the Pentateuch, that Moses was 
the writer of them. On this head we will hear the argu- 
ment as it is stated by Bishop Tomline in his Elements of 
Christian Theology, vol. i, p. 34 : 

Moses frequently [Ex. xvii, 14. xxiv, 4. Numb, xxxiii, 2.] speaks of 
himself as directed by God to write the commands which he received 
from him, and to record the events which occurred during his ministry ; 
and at the end of Deuteronomy he expressly says, " And Moses wrote 
this law, and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi, which bare 
the ark of the covenant of the Lord and unto all the elders of Israel 
[Deut. xxxi, 6.]" and afterwards, in the same chapter, he says still 
more fully; "And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of 
writing the words of this law in a book, until they were 
Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the c 
the Lord, saying, " Take this book of the law, and put it in th 
the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be L 
for a witness against thee." 

* The expression " in the side of the ark," seems to mean no more than 
" within or inside the ark." A similar phrase occurs in Jonah, i, 5, " But 
Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship." 



76 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURE?. [CHAP. 

Bishop Tomline, by a remarkable boldness of interpre- 
tation, makes the following comment [p. 5] on this 
passage : 

It appears from Deuteronomy, [ch. xxxi, v. 26.] that the book of 
the Law, that is the whole Pe?itateuch, written by the hand of Moses, 
was, by his command, deposited in the tabernacle, not long before his 
death. 

But surely these passages, f so far from proving that 
Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, are, on the 

* The principal passages (of not all) of the Pentateuch where mention is 
made of the book of the law, tables of stone &c, as written by Moses, are 
the following : 

Exod. xvii, 13 — 14. And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the 
edge of the sword. And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial 
in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua : for I will utterly put out the 
remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. 

xxiv, 4. And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in 

the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to 
the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel, 
which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the 
Lord. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons, and half of the 
blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant and read 
in the audience of ^the people : and they said " All that the Lord hath said will 
we do, and be obedient." And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the 
people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made 
with you concerning all these words. 

Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders 
of Israel : and they saw the God of Israel : and there was under his feet as it 
were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his 
clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand : 
also they saw God, and did eat and drink. And the Lord said unto Moses, Come 
up to me into the mount, and be there : and 1 will give thee tables of stone, and 
a law, and commandments which I have written ; that thou mayest teach them. 
And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua : and Moses went up into the mount 
of God. 

xxv, 16. And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall 

give thee. 

xxxi, 18. And he [God] gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of 

communing with him upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone 
written with the finger of God. 

xxxii, 15. And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the 

two tables of the testimony were in his hand : the tables were written on both 
their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. And the tables 



10.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 2. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 77 

contrary, the most convincing argument that Moses was 
not the writer. 

Is it physically possible for a man to write, that when 
the book which he is writing was finished, he gave it to 
another man with orders to deposit it in any specified 
place ? The act of writing the book must have preceded 
the completion of it, and its completion must have preceded 
the command : the record of this command, being posterior 
in time, must have come from another person : i. e. the 

were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God graven upon 
the tables. 

xxxiv, 1. And the Lord said unto Moses " Hew thee two tables of stone 

like unto the first : and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the 
first tables, which thou brakest. &c." 

xxxiv, 4. And he [Moses ?] hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, 

and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto Mount Sinai, as the 
Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone. 

xxxiv, 27 — 29. And the Lord said unto Moses " Write thou these words : 

for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with 
Israel." And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights : he did 
neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of 
the covenant, the ten commandments. And it came to pass, when Moses came 
down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, &c. 

xl, 20. 21. And he took and put the testimony into the ark, and set 

the staves on the ark, and put the mercy-seat above upon the ark : and he 
brought the ark into the tabernacle, and set up the veil of the covering, and cov- 
ered the ark of the testimony ; as the Lord commanded Moses. 

Numbers xxxiii, 1. 2. These are the journeys of the children of Israel which 
went forth out of the land of Egypt with their armies under the hand of Moses 
and Aaron. And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by 
the commandment of the Lord: and these are their journeys according to their 
goings out. 

Deut. iv, 13. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded 
you to perform, even ten commandments ; and he wrote them upon two tables of 
stone. 

v. 22. These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the 

mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with 
a great voice : and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone 
and delivered them unto me. 

ix. 10 &c. And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone written 

with the finger of God ; and on them was written according to all the words, which 
the Lord spake with you in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, in the day of 
the assembly. And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that 
the Lord gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant. 



78 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Pentateuch which records that Moses wrote the book of 
the lawjand then gave it to the priests with a command 
where it should be kept, must be the work, not of Moses, 
but of some other writer. 

The loose mode of interpretation generally applied 
to such passages as that which we have just quoted, 
results from the readiness with which most men acquiesce 



—x. I. At that time the Lord said unto me, " Hew thee two tables of stone 
like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark 
of wood. And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables 
which thoubrakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark." And- I made an ark of 
shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up 
into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand. And he wrote on the 
tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the Lord 
spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the days of the 
assembly : aud the Lord gave them unto me, And I turned myself, and 
came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made ;. 
and there they be, as the Lord commanded me. 

— xxvii, 8. And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law 
very plainly. 

xxviii, 58. If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law 

that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful 
name The Lord thy God, &c. 

xxxi, 9 — 13. And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the 

priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and 
unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, saying, "At 
the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast 
of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the 
place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their 
hearing. Gather the people together, men and women and children, and thy 
stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, 
and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law : &c. 

xxxi, 19. [Moses speaks] Now therefore write ye this song for you and 

teach it the children of Israel : put it in their mouths, that this song may be a 
witness for me against the children of Israel. &c. 

xxxi, 22 — 26. Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught 

it the children of Israel. And he gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said, 
Be strong and of a good courage : for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into 
the land which I sware unto them : and I will be with thee. 

And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this 
law in a book until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which 
bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying "Take this book of the 
law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, 
that it may be there for a witness against thee." 



11.] CLAIMS OF MOSES 2. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 79 

in what is proposed to them,* rather than take the trouble 
of examining for themselves. For this reason also the 
title " Books of Moses" which means no more than the 
" History of Moses" or the " Mosaic History/' is generally 
considered to mean the "book written by Moses/' not- 
withstanding that the whole tenor of the history shews that 
Moses could not have been its author. 

I have suggested in a previous page of this work, that 
Moses wrote no other book of the law than the two tables 
of stone : it is not, however, incumbent on me to prove 
the truth of this negative assertion, but from those who 
assert that Moses wrote a book of the law, and that the 
Pentateuch now existing is that book, the most convincing 
proof may with justice be demanded. 

Up to the point at which we are now arrived I have 
shewn, not only the weaknes of the two commonly received 
arguments for identifying the Pentateuch with the book 
of the law, namely Universal Consent and Internal Evidence, 
but that these very arguments tend rather to destroy the 
identity of the two. For in tracing back the chain of 
consent, we find that during the 900 years of Jewish 
History which precede the Babylonish captivity, we have 
no mention made of the book of the law at all. As 
regards the Internal Evidence, it is equally clear that the 
very expressions, on which most stress has been laid, could 
not have been written, if written by Moses, until after the 
book in which they occur was completed, which is an 
absurdity, involving a manifest contradiction of terms. 

* Outcd? ara\aL7T(opo<; rols ttoXXoIs rj 1/jTrjcn^ r^? aX/qdelas, kclI 

€7rl TO, 6T0LJJLCL /ULClWoV TpklTOVTCLl. 

So little trouble does the enqiiiry after truth give to the world at large ; and 
so ready are they to acquiesce in what is offered to them. Thucydides. 
Book i, ch. 20. 



80 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

CHAPTER 12. 

The case of the Samaritan Pentateuch examined. 

As an argument for the belief that Moses was the 
author of the five books has been drawn from the existence 
of the Samaritan Pentateuch, it is necessary to take some 
notice of the book which passes under this name : though 
there is one significant fact connected with it which would 
seem to disqualify it from being adduced as an evidence 
upon the subject at all. It is only 200 years that the 
Samaritan Pentateuch has been known in Europe. More- 
over there is not the slightest information to be found 
about it in any ancient author, at least as regards the cha- 
racter in which it is written, and that is all that at present 
concerns us, for the language is the same as the Hebrew. 
All that we know about it may be told in few words. 
There had always been an opinion prevalent among the 
learned that the Samaritans, who were bitter enemies to 
the Jews, might possess a copy of the Bible, differing pos- 
sibly in some particulars from the received Hebrew text. 
This notion may perhaps be traced to Origen, who collat- 
ed such copies of the Pentateuch as he found among the 
Samaritans for his great work on the Old Testament 
Many hundred years, however, elapsed, and nothing was 
discovered to support the current opinion. At last in very 
modern times, a copy of the Pentateuch, written in letters 
differing from the Hebrew letters but in the same language, 
was brought into Europe. This copy was unfortunately 
very imperfect, but Archbishop Usher afterwards procured 
six other copies of the same book. The fact of its being 
in substance and in language the same as the Hebrew bible 
seemed to confirm the authority of the latter volume, but 



12.] SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 81 

of the fact that it is written in a different sort of letter an 
ingenious solution has been propounded. It was suggested 
that this particular copy of the Pentateuch had been pre- 
served, in the old Hebrew character, by the obscure people 
who remained in Samaria, when the others and more dis- 
tinguished of their countrymen were carried captive to 
Babylon. It is said that the Jews, during the captivity, 
lost the knowledge of the old Hebrew language, and their 
teachers, who read the Hebrew Scriptures to them in their 
synagogues, were obliged to interpret the meaning by using 
a Chaldee paraphrase. To bear out this explanation it is 
necessary to suppose, also, that the Jews transferred their 
scriptures from the old Hebrew character, which, according 
to this theory, was the same as the Samaritan, into the 
present Hebrew character, which is generally understood 
to be the Chaldee, as used at Babylon, where it was adopt- 
ed by the Jews. In confirmation of this theory it is 
observed that the character found in the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch is very similar to the inscriptions occurring on 
ancient Israeli tish coins. Many learned divines have 
acquiesced in this solution of a fact, which is certainly 
curious, and seemed before to present a philological 
difficulty. 

Before this explanation of the case concerning the 
Samaritan Pentateuch can be received, it is necessary to 
shew, 1. that the book is a genuine remnant of antiquity, 
2. that the coins to which it bears a resemblance are also 
genuine. 

The first of these requirements is rendered necessary on 
account of the very short time that the book has been 
known to scholars in Europe : and the second is equally 
important : because the resemblance between the letters 
of the Samaritan Pentateuch and those found on the coins 
is the only circumstance which gives the slightest support 
to the theory suggested, or which at all exempts it from 
being considered as a mere conjecture. It is well known 

11 



82 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

how skilful are the Orientals in imitating "what appears to 
be eagerly sought after by Europeans; and perhaps no 
imposition is more easily practised than copying a book out 
of one character into another, the language still remaining 
unaltered. Coins, it is notorious, are often fabricated, and 
this fact would make it necessary to test the genuineness 
of all those which might be brought forwards to decide 
the question now under consideration. 

As regards the question, who was the author of the 
Pentateuch, the Samaritan copy furnishes no argument 
either affirmative or negative, for the claims of Moses. If 
we admit the explanation, above given, to be true, the only 
inference which could be drawn from it is that the Penta- 
teuch was in existence before the Babylonish captivity, i. e. 
about the year 600 before Christ, but it does not touch the 
long period of 900 years between Moses and the beginning of 
the Babylonish captivity. The Pentateuch might be as old 
as 600 years before Christ, and yet not as old as 1500 years 
before the same era. 

But two grave objections lie against the arguments 
adduced to support the explanation above-mentioned of 
the existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch. 

1. Why did the Jews transcribe their copies of the bible 
out of the old letters used by their fathers into the new 
letters used by the Chaldees their enemies ? Was it because, 
during the captivity, they had lost the use of the Hebrew 
tongue ? Yet they would not be more able to read the 
bible when written in Chaldee than in the old Hebrew 
letters. We do not find that Greek words become more 
intelligible to those who do not know the Greek language, 
by being written with the Roman alphabet, than when they 
are written in their own character. The Hebrew doctors, 
Ezra and the others, would be likely to understand the 
bible, even if written in the old character ; and the common 
people would have no occasion to read it at all. 

It is not found, in the history of other nations, that such 



12.] SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 83 

changes take place suddenly, or in consequence of any- 
particular event. Changes of style in writing are made 
gradually, and are continually being made, — it is impossi- 
ble that the hand-writings of a nation can either remain 
stationary or be completed suddenly : they flow on* like 
the course of time, imperceptible in their minutiae, but 
wonderful in their results. If we could trace the progress 
of man through all the variations to which he is subject, 
we should find, in all cases, a continuity of thought, 
though judging from the appearance of distant points only 
in our history, we are apt to regard as heterogeneous, 
varieties of the same species acting under the same natural 
laws. 

2. The argument drawn from coins may be summarily 
disposed of, and in refuting it I shall adduce the evidence 
of one who is well acquainted with the Hebrew language 
and literature, and author of a learned and valuable 
Hebrew Grammar, * Mr Stuart, associate professor of sacred 
literature in the institution at Andover. His words are 
these : 

The present square form of the Hebrew letters, is not the most ancient 
one ; as is evident from inscriptions on Hebrew coins, stamped in the 
time of the Maccabees, which have characters snch as are designated in 
alphabet ~No III. [alluding to his table of alphabets, in ichich No III 
gives the Samaritan letters']. The present square letter is evidently 
derived from the Aramsean forms of letters, and probably originated 
some time after the birth of Christ. This, Kopp has recently shown, in a 
satisfactory manner, in his Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit, II, pp. 95 
seq., particularly pp. 156 seq. 

This extract throws a clear light upon the subject before 
us. The present Hebrew letters are, it seems, later than 
the Christian era, whilst on the other hand the coins which 
have been adduced to prove the antiquity of the Samaritan 
Pentateuch, were struck long after the Babylonish captivity. 

* Grammar of the Hebrew Language. &c. 4th edition, reprinted with the 
concurrence of the author, 8vo, Oxford. D. A. Talboys, 1831. 



84 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

The same process of inference therefore goes to prove ; 
first that the Samaritan letters are not necessarily as old 
as the period of the captivity, but only as the time of the 
Maccabees, and secondly, that the Jews did not change the 
form of their letters in consequence of their slavery in 
Babylon, but in a much later age, namely after the begin- 
ning of the Christian era. 

The Samaritan Pentateuch, therefore, can furnish no 
aid towards our present enquiry, which is to ascertain who 
was the author of the book ; or if it bears at all upon the 
question, it rather furnishes a testimony unfavourable to 
the claims of Moses. For if the book had been written by 
Moses in its present form, it is probable that the Israelitish 
people would never have consented to its being transferred 
into another character. 

In conclusion, I will venture to propose an easy and 
natural solution for the case of the Samaritan Pentateuch. 
It is known that the hand writing of all countries gradually 
changes with time. No two generations write alike ; and 
if we take the writings of the same country at two different 
periods removed to the distance of two or three centuries 
apart, the diversity will be so great that the two specimens 
may be supposed to belong to different countries and to 
different languages. The Samaritans are known to have 
borne a national enmity towards the Jews : there was no 
intercourse between the two nations. Together with their 
manners and habits, their handwritings, also, would 
naturally vary : it seems therefore in no way remarkable 
that their bibles, as they appeared in the seventeenth century 
after Christ, should be written in a different character from 
those of the Jews, who have also adopted different modes 
of writing, in consequence of their dispersion into foreign 
countries. The reader will find in the Appendix to this 
work a long extract about the Samaritan Pentateuch, in 
which I see good reason for believing that the Samaritans 
received then sacred books from the Jews themselves, in 



13.] MOSES NOT AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH. 85 

the time of Manasseh, and long after the return of the 
latter from captivity. 



CHAPTER 13. 

That moses is not the author of the Pentateuch, provee- 
1. Prom internal evidence. 



Thus then have we examined the grounds upon which it 
is generally believed that Moses is the author of those five 
books which form the beginning of the Hebrew Scriptures 
or Old Testament, as they are termed by Christians in 
contradistinction to their own books which they call the 
New Testament. 

It remains to produce more positive testimony to the 
same end, and in doing so I shall class the various argu- 
ments under two heads also : 1. The Internal Evidence 
furnished by the books themeselves that Moses is not their 
author, and 2. External Evidence, obtained from various 
sources leading to the same conclusion. 

The Internal Evidence, (which will now have to be con- 
sidered, shall be also classified under different sections, as 
tending to make the subject more clear, and to give grea- 



86 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

ter force to the general principles of criticism on which 
the inferences, which I would draw, are grounded : 

1. The two tables of stone seem to have supplied the place 
of a book of the law. 

That the Hebrew legislator should deliver to his coun- 
trymen two tables of stone, on which the principal heads 
of their law were engraved, is consistent with all the infor- 
mation which History supplies concerning those early times 
and the practice of other nations. But, if we suppose a book 
of such length and bulk as the Pentateuch to have been 
given at the same time to the Israelites, what becomes of 
the two tables of stone ? where was the necessity that these 
also should be given ? It was not that they might be set up as 
monuments visible to the whole people, and as exponents 
of the heads of a law, which the written book would de- 
velope more fully, for the two tables of stone were never 
set up at all ; they were kept in the ark of the covenant, 
and there is no mention made of their ever being taken 
out ; not even when the Temple of Solomon was built, 
when they might with propriety have been set up in some 
public place, if this had been the use for which they were 
originally designed. But no such use is hinted at, by the 
writer, nor were they originally given by God for such a 
purpose ; as is manifest from their size, for when Moses 
came down from the mount, he held the two tables in his 
hand, which he could not have done, if they were of the 
usual size of monuments made to be set up in public. 

But the supposition that the two tables of stone were in- 
tended to be set up as monuments, is refuted by the fact 
that other stones were actually set up by Joshua, according 
to a command given by Moses, and that on them was in- 
scribed a copy of the law of Moses. The original injunc- 
tion of Moses is found in the 27th chapter of Deutero- 
nomy) vv. 1 — 8. 

And Moses with the elders of Israel commanded the people saying, 
Keep all the commandments which I command you this day. And it 



13.] MOSES NOT AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH. 87 

shall be on the clay when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which 
the Lord thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, 
and plaster them with plaster : and thou shalt write upon them all the 
words of this law, when thon art passed over, that thou mayest go in 
unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth 
with milk and honey ; as the Lord God of thy Fathers hath promised 
thee. Therefore it shall be, when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall 
set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and 
thou shalt plaster them with plaster. And there shalt thou build an 
altar unto the Lord thy God, an altar of stones : thou shalt not lift up 
any iron tool upon them. Thou shalt build the altar of the Lord thy 
God of whole stones : and thou shalt offer burnt offerings thereon unto 
the Lord thy God : and thou shalt offer peace offerings, and shalt eat 
there, and rejoice before the Lord thy God. And thou shalt write upon 
the stones all the words of this law very plainly. 

The fulfilment of the command is related in the 8th 
chapter of Joshua vv. 30 — 32 : 

Then Joshua built an altar unto the Lord God of Israel in mount 
Ebal, as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, 
as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, 
over which no man hath lift up any iron : and they offered thereon burnt 
offerings unto the Lord, and sacrificed peace-offerings. And he wrote 
there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote 
in the presence of the children of Israel. And all Israel, and 
their elders, and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark, 
and on that side before the priests the Levites, which bare the 
ark of the covenant of the Lord, as well thej stranger, as he that was 
born among them ; half of them over against mount Gerizim, and half 
of them over against mount Ebal; as Moses the servant of the Lord had 
commanded before, that they should bless the people of Israel. And 
afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, 
according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not 
a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all 
the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the 
strangers that were conversant among them. 

This narrative is remarkable, for it commemorates a pub- 
lic solemnity, held for no other purpose than that the laws 
of Moses might be impressed on the minds of the Jewish 
people. The writer also tells us that it was held in accor- 



88 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

dance with the book of Moses, and yet he does not tell us 
that the book of Moses was produced on that occasion, 
though we are to suppose that it was in existence. Yet 
something is then done which seems to prove, by implica- 
tion, that there was no such book at all at that time. Jos- 
hua is said to have engraved on certain stones a copy of 
the law of Moses, and afterward to have read all the 
words of the law, and the concluding paragraph relates that 
" there was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which 
Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel." 
Must we, then, suppose that the whole of the Pentateuch 
was inscribed on those stones by Joshua ? what could be 
the use of inscribing the historical parts of the Pentateuch 
on those stones, or reading them afterwards to the people, 
if the object was simply to admonish them that they should 
observe the law of Moses ? It is more probable that an in- 
scription much shorter than the whole of the Pentateuch, 
was carved upon these stones, and, as no mention is made 
of any book at all on the same occasion, we have a negative 
proof that no such book was in existence at that time. 

The delivery of the two tables renders it unlikely that 
any other writing was bequeathed by Moses to the Israelitish 
people, particularly as the age in which Moses lived precedes 
by many centuries the times in which books, as far as we 
know of them, can be proved to have been written. 

2. Manner in which Moses is mentioned in the Pentateuch, 

If however, notwithstanding this antecedent improbability, 
it should yet be contended that Moses certainly wrote a 
book called the Book of the Law, it may be shewn that 
the Pentateuch, at all events, is not that book, as must 
be evident to every one who will dispassionately consider 
the manner in which the Pentateuch is written. This is a 
consideration which involves no question of grammatical 
idiom or style, which can be intelligible to the Hebrew 
student only — I reserve that for a separate chapter — but 



13«] MOSES NOT AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH. 89 

is easy of comprehension to the most ordinary intellect. 
My meaning may be illustrated in this manner. If we 
read in a book the account of certain transactions in which 
a particular man is concerned, and his name always occurs 
in the third person, it is a natural inference that this man 
did not write the book, in which he is so described. This 
general principle is, no doubt, to be taken with some 
limitation ; for it is well known that some persons have, 
from modesty or some other motive, introduced their own 
names in the third person, into their narrative of events in 
which they have acted a prominent part. Thus Thucydides 
the celebrated historian of the Peloponnesian War, prefaces 
his work with these words ; 

@ovfcvhl$r]? 'Adrjvalo? ^vveypayfre t'ov iroXefiov Ttov UeXoTrovvrjo-lcov 
Kal 'AOrjvaLcov, &>9 eTT6Ke<x7)(rav 7rpo? oWtJXovs. 

Thucydides, of Athens, wrote the war between the Peloponnesians 
and Athenians, how they fought one against the other. 

This mode of introducing his work, however, does not 
prevent the author from speaking, elsewhere, in the first 
person, as for instance in chapter 48 of the second book 
of his history, where he describes the plague at Athens : 

'Eyco Be, olov re iyiyvero, Xe^co, Kal a<f) wv Tt9 crfcoirwv, ecTrore Kal 
av6i<$ lirunkcroiy /jloXlctt av e^oi tl 7rpoeLc)ct)^ fir) ayvosiv, ravra StjXgoctco, 
avros re vocrrjcras, Kal avrbs lEcov aWovs ira<ryovTa<$. 

I will relate its nature, together with such details as may best enable 
a man hereafter, if it should come again, to recognize it and to be 
prepared against it ; for I botli had the complaint myself, and saw 
others who had it also. 

It is clear, from this passage, that Thucydides was the 
author of the book which bears his name ; and the mode of 
speaking in the third person, with which the history com- 
menced, is compensated by other direct expressions, and 
does not detract from his claims to be regarded as the 
author of the book. Indeed, the former sentence may be 
considered as equivalent to a modern title page " The 

History of the Peloponnesian war &c. by Thucydides." 

12 



90 



THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 



It is also observable that writers, speaking of themselves 
in the third person, use a sort of reserve in all such 
self-descriptions. The admirable historian just mentioned, 
alludes to himself in two or three passages only of his 
immortal work, and with the utmost modesty and 
taste, though he held an important command as admiral 
in the war which he describes, and received the 
honour of ostracism from his democratic countrymen. 
But when we recur to the Hebrew Pentateuch, these two 
indications of authorship altogether fail us. Moses is 
invariably described in the third person, and, as three-fourths 
of the book concern him most intimately, it is impossible 
to conceive that the book could have been written by him 
without betraying some indication that he was the author. 

This, then, is the second objection which Internal Evidence 
furnishes against Moses being the author of the Pentateuch, 
namely the manner in which as the author of that book he 
would be made to speak of himself. There is not a single 
passage in which can be found the most distant hint that 
Moses himself was its author. On the contrary the whole 
tenor of the book exhibits Moses as described by another 
person living in a later age, and some passages may be 
found which, if supposed to have been written by Moses, 
would attribute to him a vain-glorious character, which is 
highly inconsistent w 7 ith his known virtues, but would be 
appropriate from the pen of a later writer, who wished to 
exalt and panegyrize the great law-giver to whom their 
nation owed its political existence. The following passages 
are instances of panegyric on Moses, which would much 
detract from our opinion of his modesty, if we could suppose 
them to have proceeded from his own pen : 

Exod. xi, 3. And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the 
^Egyptians;, Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of 
ir>vpt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the 

people. 

Numbers xii, o — 8. Now the man Moses was very meek, above all 



13.] MOSES NOT AUTHOR OF 1TIE PENTATEUCH. 91 

the men which were upon the face of the earth. And the Lord spake 

&c My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 

With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in 
dark speeches ; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold : where- 
fore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Mouses. 

Deuter. xxxiii, I. And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the 
man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. And he 
said " The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them ; he 
sinned forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of 
saints : from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Yea he 
loved the people ; all his saints are in thy hand : and they sat down 
at thy feet ; every one shall receive of thy words. Moses com- 
manded us a law, even the inheritance of the coim-re^ation of 
Jacob, and he was king in Jeshurun, ^vhen the heads of the people 
and the tribes of Israel were gathered together. 

To these passages may be added one more, which seems 
to belong to the same class, and furnishes a singular mode 
of expression if we suppose it to come from Moses speaking 
of himself and his brother. 

Exod. vi, 26. 27. These are that Aaron and Moses, to whom the 
Lord said, " Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt 
according to their armies." These are they which spake to Pharaoh 
king of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt : these 
are that Moses and Aaron. 

3. A book more ancient than the Pentateuch quoted by the 
writer of the Pentateuch. 

The writer of the Pentateuch quotes a more ancient 
work, which yet had for its subject the same events that 
are related in the Pentateuch. This appears from the 
following passage in the book of Numbers. 

Numbers xxi, 11. And they journeyed from Oboth, and pitched 
at Ije-abarim, in the wilderness which is before Moab toward the sun- 
rising. Emm thence they removed, and pitched iu the valley of 
Zared. Fioin thence they removed, and pitched on the other side of 
Arnon, which is in the wilderness that cometh out of the coasts of the 
Amorites : for Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the 
Amorites. Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, 
" What he did in the Red Sea, and in the brooks of Arnon." 



92 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

V. Anachronism concerning the enmity of the Egyptians 
towards shepherds. 

In Genesis, xlvi, 34, it is said as a reason for the Israel- 
ites being placed in the land of Goshen, that "every shep- 
herd is an abomination to the Egyptians." But it appears 
from every other part of the history of Joseph and Pha- 
raoh, that there was no such enmity between them. 
This is also the opinion of Dr Shuckford ; whose account 
of the matter is as follows : 

There is indeed one passnge in Genesis, which seems to intimate that 
there was that religious hatred, which the Egyptians were afterwards 
charged with, paid to creatures even iu the days of Joseph ; for we are 
informed that he put his brethren upon telling Pharaoh their profession, 
in order to have them placed in the land of Goshen, for, or because, 
"Every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians, Gen. xlvi, 34."" 
I must freely acknowledge, that I cannot satisfy myself about the 
meaning of this passage ; I cannot see that shepherds were really at this 
time an abomination to the Egyptians; for Pharaoh himself had his 
shepherds, and when he ordered Joseph to place his brethren in the land 
of Goshen, he was so far from disapproving of their employment, that 
he ordered him, if he knew of any men of activity amongst them, that 
he should make them rulers over his cattle ; nay the Egyptians were at 
this time shepherds themselves, as well as the Israelites, for we are told, 
when their money failed, they brought their cattle of all sorts unto 
Joseph, to exchange them for corn, and among the rest, their flocks 
of the same kind with those which the Israelites were to tell Pharaoh 
that it was their profession to take care of, as will appear to any 
one that will consult the Hebrew text in the places referred to. 
Either therefore we must take the expression that every shepherd 
was an abomination io the Egyptians, to mean no more than that 
they thought meanly of the employment, that it was a lazy, idle, and 
unactive profession, as Pharaoh seemed to question, whether there were 
any men of activity amongst them, when he heard what their trade was; 
or, if we take the words to signify a religious aversion to them, which 
does indeed seem to be the true meaning of the expression from the use 
made of it in other places of Scripture, then I do not see how it is 
reconcilable with Pharaoh's inclination to employ them himself, or with 
the Egyptians being many of them at this time of the same profession 



13.] ANACHRONISMS. 93 

themselves, which the heathen writers agree with Moses in supposing 
them to be. [Diod. Sic. lib. i.] 

The learned have observed that there are several interpolations in the 
books of the Scriptures, which were not the words of the Sacred Writers. 
Some persons, affecting to shew their learning, when they read over the 
ancient MSS., would sometimes put a short remark in the margin, which 
they thought might give a reason for, or clear the meaning of some 
expression in the text against which they placed it, or to which they 
adjoined it ; and from hence it happened now and then, that the tran- 
scribers from manuscripts so remarked upon, did, through mistake, take 
a marginal note or remark into the text, imagining it to be a part of it. 
Whether Moses might not end his period in this place with the words 
that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen ; and wdiether what follows, 
for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians, may not have 
been added to the text this way, is entirely submitted to the judgment 
of the learned. Connection, Book "V, vol. i, p. 341. 

The learned writer of this extract is more correct in his 
statement of the difficulty than in its solution. It is a 
principle in criticism to consider a book as free from 
interpolation, until it is proved that interpolations have 
certainly been made. The charge of interpolation is brought 
against the books of the Old Testament, for no other 
reason than to reduce them into harmony with the pre- 
conceived opinion that they were written by the authors to 
whom they are commonly ascribed. In the present instance 
there has been no interpolation. The compiler, relating 
the honours paid to the family of Jacob in Egypt, and 
endeavouring to harmonize them with the state of things 
in his own times, 1000 years later, when the Egyptians, by 
their religious absurdities, had been made to entertain an 
enmity towards shepherds, has given us a description which, 
in this particular, is inconsistent with itself. In short the 
Egyptians held shepherds in aversion in the fifth, 
but not in the fifteenth, century before the Christian era. 

V. Anachronism that Moses should i*ecord his own death. 

There are certain passages in the Pentateuch, neither 
few in number nor ambiguous in meaning, which prove 

12 * 



94 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES, [CHAP. 

that Moses was not the writer of that book, and that it 
could not have been written until several hundred years 
after his time ; events are there mentioned which could 
not be recorded by Moses, because they did not happen 
during his life-time. 

The most striking of these anachronisms occurs 
in the last chapter of Deuteronomy, where the death of 
Moses is related. The whole chapter must be transcribed, 
because it bears in it the most complete refutation of every 
expedient which has been had recourse to for solving the 
anomaly that an author should record his own death. 

And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of 
Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the 
Lord shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan, and all Naphtali, 
and the land of Ephraim,and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, unto 
the utmost sea, and the south, and the plain of the valley of Jericho, the 
city of palm trees, unto Zoar. And the Lord said unto him " This is 
the land which T sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and uuto Jacob, 
saying, I will give it unto thy seed : I have caused thee to see it with 
thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither. 

So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, 
according to the word of the Lord. And He buried him in a valley in 
the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor : but no man knoweth of his 
sepulchre unto this day. And Moses was an hundred and twenty years 
old when he died : his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. 
And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty 
days : so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended. 

And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom ; for 
Moses had laid his hands upon him : and the children of Israel hearkened 
untojiim, and did as the Lord commanded Moses. And there arose 
not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew 
face to face, in all the signs and the wonders, which the Lord sent him 
to dojin the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to 
all his land, and in all that mighty hand and in all the great terror 
which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel. 

As it is impossible for a writer to relate his own death, 
those who maintain that the Pentateuch is the work of 
Moses, make an exception in favour of the last chap- 



13.] ANACHRONISMS. 95 

ter. Dr Gray has the following remarks upon this subject : 

The account of the death and burial of Moses, and some other 
seemingly porthumous particulars described in this chapter, have been 
produced to prove, that it could not have been written by Moses : and 
in all probability these circumstances may have been inserted by Joshua, 
to complete the history of this illustrious prophet ; or were afterwards 
added by Samuel, or some prophet who succeeded him. They were 
admitted by Ezra as authentick, and we have no reason to question 
the fidelity. 

This language is authoritative and dictatorial. Truth 
when questioned, comes out purer and brighter for the 
ordeal through which it has passed : whereas error is 
scorched and withered by the touch of criticism. The 
chapter before us is admitted by all not to have been 
written by Moses. Why then was it ever attached to the 
book of Moses without some strong mark to denote that it 
was only an appendix ? It cannot be allowed that Joshua, 
Samuel or Ezra could connive at such a deception. There 
is internal evidence that neither Joshua nor Samuel made 
this addition to the Pentateuch ; for the word Nabi, render- 
ed in English prophet, indicates an age later than that of 
Samuel. We learn from the First book of Samuel, chap, 
ix, verse 9, which was written after Samuel's death, that 
he who 

is now called a Prophet, was beforetime called a Seer. 

If, therefore, the xxxivth chapter of Deuteronomy had 
been written before or in the time of Samuel, Moses would 
have been designated as a Seer, [in Hebrew Roech] and 
not Nabi a Prophet. This exculpates both Joshua and 
Samuel from having added to the book of Moses without 
mark of such addition. There are also other indications in 
the same chapter that Joshua could not have written it, 
for he would hardly have written of himself that Joshua 
the son of Nun " was full of the spirit of wisdom : " neither 
would he have said " there arose not a prophet since in 



96 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Israel like unto Moses," for there was no other prophet to 
whom Moses could be compared except Joshua himself. 
The word since implies that many years had passed since 
the death of Moses, and that many prophets had arisen, 
none of whom could be placed in comparison with him 
who led them out of Egypt. Moreover, the words " no 
man knoweth of his sepulchre," i. e. the sepulchre of 
Moses, "unto this day " are another proof that the chapter 
was not added by Joshua, for they imply that a considera- 
ble space of time had elapsed, during which the sepulchre 
of Moses remained unknown. As Joshua died only 25 
years after Moses, these words coming from his mouth 
would lose half their force, and would probably, also, 
convey an untruth, for we cannot believe that the great 
Hebrew legislator was buried clandestinely, or that Joshua, 
the next in command, and almost his equal, could be igno- 
rant w 7 here his body was laid. 

6. Anachronism in names, especially those of places, 
mentioned in the Pentateuch. 

Many names of places occur in the Pentateuch, which 
were not given to those places until long after the time of 
Moses. This proves either that the book was written after 
those places had received the names by which they were 
then known ; or that some later writer has inserted into 
the original work of Moses the names by which those places 
were known in his own age. The latter supposition is 
wholly untenable : it would be an outrage upon the integrity 
of a book like the Bible, which derives its importance from 
its being an immaculate record. The number of such 
passages is so great, (several hundred altogether) that a 
large part of the whole must be cut off as not genuine, if 
such texts are interpolations. It would, moreover, be a 
positive infringement of that very law which Moses 
delivered to the Israelites ; for we find in Deuteronomy 
iv, 2, it is expressly forbidden to make any change what- 



13.] ANACHRONISMS. 9.7 

ever in the covenant which God gave through Moses. 

Deut. iv, 2. Te shall not add unto the word which. 1 command you, 
neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the command- 
ments of the Lord your God, which I command you. 

If it should be replied that the mere insertion of the 
name of a place into the historical part of the Pentateuch 
is not an infringement of the law of Moses, such a reply is 
tantamount to an admission of the whole question. I 
admit that the perfect law of Moses is contained in the 
Pentateuch, but not that the terms " Pentateuch " and " law 
of Moses" are convertible terms. The law of Moses was 
given 1500 years before Christ, but the Pentateuch was 
compiled probably not more than 400 or 500 years 
before Christ. 

The passages where more modern names of places occur 
in the Pentateuch are these : 

1. Hebron. 

Gen. xiii, 1 8. Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the 
plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto 
the Lord. 

Instead of the words "in the plain of Mamre" Bishop 
Patrick and Kidder interpret it " by the oak of Mamre," 
which is to be preferred, if we retain the reading 'in 
Hebron ' : but if, with Calmet, we read ' by or near Hebron/ 
the interpretation ' plain of Mamre ' may be retained : for 
it is evident that, though an oak may be in a city, a plain 
can only be in its neighbourhood. 

Gen. xxiii, 2. And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron 
in the land of Canaan : and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to 
weep for her. 

— xxiii, 19. And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in 
the cave of the field of Maclipelah before Mamre ; the same is Hebron 
in the land of Canaan. 

— xxxv, 27, And Jacob came unto Isaac his father unto Mamre. 
unto the city of Arbah, which is Hebron, where Abraham and Isaac 
sojourned. 



98 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [cHAP. 

xlix, 30. In the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which 



is before Mamre, in the land of Canaan &:c. 

It appears from these passages that the city of Hebron, 
which was also called Mamre, formerly bore the name of 
Kirjath-arba, i. e. the city of Arba. A question, therefore, 
arises, as to the time when the name Kirjath-arba was 
exchanged for that of Hebron. We in vain search the 
Pentateuch for an answer to this question, but in the book 
of Joshua the difficulty is entirely cleared up. 

Joshua xiv, 6. 15 — Caleb, the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite said 

unto him [Joshua] " give me this mountain, whereof the Loid 

spake in that day j for thou heardst in that day how the Anakims weie 
there, and that the cities were great and fenced : if so be the Lord will be 
with me, then I shall be able to drive them out, as the Lord said. 
And Joshua blessed him, and gave unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh 
Hebron for an inheritance. Hebron therefore became the inheritance of 
Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite unto this day, because that he 
wholly followed the Lord God of Israel. And the name of Hebron 
before was Kirath-arba ; which Arba was a great man among the Ana- 
kims. And the land had rest from war. 

If the name of Hebron was not given to the city formerly 
called Kirjath-arba, until after it was taken from the Ana- 
kims by Caleb the son of Jephunnah, it follows that the 
Pentateuch, in which the name ' Hebron' occurs several 
times, could not have been written until after the time, 
when that town was taken by Caleb the son of Jephunneh. 

2. Dan. 

Gen. xiv, 14. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken 
captive, he armed his trained servants,^born in his own house, three 
hundred andjeighteen, and pursued^them unto Dan. 

In the time of Abraham, and even in the time of Moses, 
there was no place called Dan : there was a city called 
Laish, which afterwards was captured by a marauding 
expedition of the Iraelites and received the name of Dan. 
Bishop Patrick, in the Family Bible, gives the following note 
upon this passage : 

— pursued tli cut unto Ban.'] As far as the place where one of the 



13.] ANACHRONISMS. 99 

springs of Jordan breaks forth called Dan, as Josephus relates, where he 
speaks of this history. 

The words of Josephus here follow : 

Kara TrejuLTTTrjv einTrecrcbv vv/cra rots ^Acravpiois irepl Aavov — oi/to)? 
yap rj ereoa rod 'IopBdvou irpoaayopeverat irriyr] — kc. 

Falling upon the Assyrians the fifth night near Dan — for so is one 
of the fountains of the Jordan called — &c. 

We cannot doubt that in the time of Josephus the name 
Dan was well known to the Jews, whether applied to the 
tribe of Dan in the south of Palestine, to the Tittle town 
formerly called Laish but afterwards Dan, or to the foun- 
tain of the Jordan, which seems to have been called Dan, 
because it was in the immediate neighbourhood of the 
town. This does not interfere with the question, whether 
the word Dan, as applied to these places, could have been 
in existence in the time of Moses. If it was not then 
known, as we have the best evidence to prove, we must 
infer that the Pentateuch was written or compiled after 
the name of Dan was given to the town of Laish : i. e. 
some time during the government of the Judges. 

3. Succoth. 

Gen. xxxiii, 17. And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built him an 
house, and made booths for his cattle : therefore the name of the place 
is called Succoth. 

Dr Wells, as quoted by the editors of the Family Bible, 
rem arks on the name Succoth : 

So the place was afterwards called : it is situated not far from 
Jordan to the East. 

This is, of course, the natural and obvious meaning of 
the text. It is not stated that Jacob gave the name of 
Succoth to this place, and as he soon after went down into 
Egypt, and none of his posterity ever came again into 
Canaan, until the time of Moses, it is almost certain that the 
place did not receive the name of Succoth until the Israel- 
ites were settled in the land, and gratified their natural 



100 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

vanity by finding out the places where their great ancestors, 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had formerly resided, and 
naming~the places in memory of the remarkable events 
which had^happened at each of them. 

4. Eshcol. 

Numbers xiii, 23. And they came unto the brcok of Eshcol, and 
cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare 
it betweeiAwo upon a staff ; and they brought of the pomegranates and 
of [the figs. The "place was called the brook Eshcol, because of the 
cluster of grapes which the children of Israel cut down from thence. 

Bishop Patrick's note on this verse is highly sensible and 
becoming : 

The place %oas called the brook .Eskcol.] That is, when the Israelites 
got possession of the land, they called this brook, or valley, " Eshcol/'' 
in memory of this bunch of grapes, for so Eshcol signifies. 

But the hook, which relates that the place was called 
Eshcol, cannot have been written until the act of naming had 
taken place. 



5. Bethlehem. 



Gen. xxxv, 19. And Baeheldied and was buried in the way to Eph- 
rath, which is Bethlehem. 

This form of speech implies that the place once called 
Ephrath was better known in the time of the writer by the 
name of Bethlehem. This is natural and consistent if we 
consider it as coming from a later writer, but it is difficult 
to conceive Moses writing in such a manner. Neither he 
nor the people, for whom he wrote, had ever been in 
the promised land, and could not have understood such a 
description. 

The names again occur in the 48th chapter of Genesis, 
v. 7. 

e \ And as for rne," — Jacob is speaking — " when I came from Padan, 
Eachel died by me in the land of Canaan in the way, when yet there was 
but a little way to come unto Ephrath : and I buried her there in the 
way of Ephrath; " the same is Bethlehem. 



1 3.] ANACHRONISMS. 101 

The concluding words the same is Bethlehem, if not 
meant to explain the obsolete name, Ephrath, by one that 
was more intelligible, can have no meaning at all. It will 
be observed that many of these second names given to 
p^ces in Palestine, are compounds of the word ' Beth.' 
They were mostly given to these places, after the Israelites 
expelled the original inhabitants, and took possession of 
the country for themselves. An exception may be taken 
in the case, of a few places whose names are said to have 
been changed by Abraham, Isaac or Jacob : of which there 
are several examples. 

6. Bethel. 

In Genesis xii, 8, we read the following passage con- 
cerning Abram ; 

And be removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Betheb 
and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east : 
and there he bnilded an altar unto the Lord, and called upou the name 
of the Lord. 

It is an obvious comment to make on this verse that 
there was no such place as Bethel in the days of Abraham : 
for in Genesis xxviii, 18, 19, we find that Jacob gave the 
name of Bethel, which means " the house of God," to the 
place before called Luz. The words are these : 

And Jacob rose up earl} 7 in the morning, and took the stone he 
had put for his pillow, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon 
the top of it. And he called the name of that place Bethel : but the 
name of that city was called Luz at the first. 

7. Beerseeba. 

In Genesis xxi, 31, we read the origin of the name Beer- 
sheba ; namely the oath or covenant made between Abra- 
ham and Abimelech : 

Wherefore he called that place Beer-sheba; because there they s ware 
both of them. 

The place had been already mentioned in the 14th 

verse of the same chapter : 

13 



102 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES CHAP.] 

She [Hagar] departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. 

But in Genesis xxvi, vv. 26 — 31, we find the same story 
of the oath told of Isaac and Abimelech : with a variation 
concerning the name Beer-sheba : 

vv. 32. 33. And it came to pass the same day that Isaac's servants 
came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said 
unto him " We have found water." And he called it Sheba : therefore 
the name of the city is called Beer-sheba unto this day. 

The comment, given on this text in the Family Bible, is 
from Dr Wells : 

Isaac renewed the well dag by his father at this place, where in later 
times a city was built. 

This account of the matter is probable, so far as concerns 
Abraham, Isaac, and Abimelech, but the w r ords of the text 
are, ' Therefore the name of the city &c.' It is sufficient 
to remark that no city of Beersheba existed in the time of 
Moses : consequently the book in which it is mentioned 
could not have been written by Moses or any of his con- 
temporaries. 

8. HORMAH. 

Numbers xiv, 44. But they presumed to go up unto the hill-top : 
nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and Moses, departed 
not out of the camp. Then the Amalekites came down, and the Can- 
aanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them 
even unto Hormah. 

xxi, 1 — 3. And when king Arad the Canaanite, which dwelt 

in the south, heard tell that Israel came by the way of the spies ; then 
he fought against Israel and took some of them prisoners. And Israel 
vowed a vow unto the Lord and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this 
people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities : and the 
Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites, 
and they utterly destroyed them and their cities, and he called the name 
of the place Hormah. 

" This," [says Dr Shuckford, as quoted in the Family 

Bible,] 



13.] ANACHRONISMS. 103 

was effected in the days of Joshua, Jos. xii 14,* or a little after his 
death. Judges i, 17.1" 

Yet Dr Shuckford did not perceive that the relation of 
an event, which happened in the days of Joshua, could not 
be made by the pen of Moses. The second of the passages 
above quoted, namely the first three verses of Numbers 
xxi, describes the fulfilment of Israel's vow, not in a mere 
word or short sentence, such as others which the commen- 
tators explain by saying that they are interpolations The 
present text is too full for us to suppose so : it is evidently 
an integral portion of the main narrative, and cannot be 
separated from it. The whole of this part of the history, 
therefore, is liable to the same observation which has been 
so often made, that it was written by some one who lived 
long after the time of Moses. 

9. GlLEAD. 

When Jacob fled from Laban, he is said, in Gen. xxxi, 
21, to have " set his face toward the mount Gilead :" But in 
verses 46, 47, 48, of the same chapter we read : 

And Jacob said unto his brethren, " Gather stones" : and they took 
stones, and made an heap : and they did eat there upon the heap. 
And Laban called it Jegarsahdutha : but Jacob called it Galeed. And 
Laban said, "this heap is a witness between me and thee this day/* 
Therefore was the name of it called Galeed. 

The Hebrew word in these verses is the same, formed of 
the four consonants GLYD, but the vowel points are 
different, for which reason our English translation renders 
the word Gilead in the one case and Galeed in the other. 
But, whatever was the name of the place whether it was 

* Jos. xii, 7 — 14- And these are the kings of the country which Joshua and 
the children of Israel smote &c v. 14. The king of Hormah, one; &c. 

f Jud. i, 17. And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the 
Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of 
the city was called Hormah. 



104 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES [CHAP. 

called so by Jacob or by Abraham, the word might properly 
be used by Moses, who lived later than both of them. This 
instance then furnishes a contrast to the other passages, 
already cited, of which Moses could not have been the 
writer. 

Numbers xxxii, M — 42. And the children of Gad built Dibon and 
Ataroth, and Aroer, and Atroih, Shophan and Jaazer, and Jogbehah, 
and Beth-nimrah, and JBethhacan, fenced cities : and folds for sheep. 

And the children of E;euben built Heshbon, and Elealeh. and Kir- 
jathaim, and Nebo, and Baal-meon, (their names being chauged), and 
Shibmah : and gave other names unto the cities which they bnilded. 

And the children of: Machir the son of Manasseh went to Gilead, and 
took it, and dispossessed the Amorite which was in it. And Moses gave 
Gilead unto Machir* the son of Manasseh ; and he dwelt therein. 

And Jair the son of Manasseh went and took the small towns thereof, 
and called them Havoth-Jair. 

And Nobah went and took Kenath, and the villages thereof and 
called it Nobah, after his own name. 

The foundation of all these towns, with the other events 
there related, could not be effected in the two years which 
passed between the first invasion of Bashan by those tribes, 
and the death of Moses. The account of these things, 
therefore, must be considered as proceeding not from him, 
but some later writer, who describes not only the settling of 
those tribes which had obtained their allotments beyond 
Jordan, in the life-time of Moses, but also the erection of 
towns and cities, which occupied them many years. 

VI. Allusion to events that are known to have happened 
after the death of Moses. 

Under this head will be placed certain passages which 
bear a sort of negative or indirect testimony to the argu- 
ment which we are pursuing. Such are the following : 



* In Deuteronomy iij, 15. we read this in the first person, coming directly from 
Moses : — " And I gave Gilead unto Machir." 



13.] ANACHRONISMS. 105 

I. The expulsion of the Canaanites. 

And Abrain passed througli the laud unto the place of Sichem. 
uuto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. 
Gen. iix, 6. 

The observation,, which concludes this passage, is un- 
meaning, if the Canaanites were still in the land when the 
book of Genesis was written. As the Canaanites were 
one of the nations against whom Joshua fought after Moses 
was dead, it is evident that Moses could not have written 
these words, but that they must be referred to an author 
who lived when the Canaanites had been exterminated. In 
the 13th chapter of Genesis, verse 7, is a passage of similar 
import : 

And there was a strife between the herd men of Ab ram's cattle and the 
herdmen of Lot's cattle : and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled 
then in the land. 

The inferential force of those passages, proving that 
they were written after the expulsion of those tribes from 
the Holy Land, has not escaped the notice of those who 
maintain the Pentateuch to be the work of Moses. The 
explanation, which Dr Graves gives of them, cannot be lis- 
tened to for an instant. 

It does not: follow that the Canaanites have been expelled when this 
clause was written : it may mean no more than that the Canaanites were 
eveafjit that time in the land, which God had promised to give the 
seed of Abram. This observation, in the former place, may have been 
intended to illustrate the faith of Abram, who did not hesitate to obey 
the command of God, by sojourning in this strange land, though even 
then inhabited by a powerful natiou, totally unconnected with, if not 
averse to, him ; a circumstance intimated by Abram' s remonstrance to 
Lot, to avoid an enmity between them, ec because they were brethren:" 
as if he had said, It would be extreme imprudence in us, who are bre- 
thren, who have no connexion or friendship but with each other, to 
allow any dissension to arise between us, surrounded as we are by stran- 
gers, indifferent or even averse to us, who might rejoice at our quarrel, 
and take advantage of it to our common mischief : " for the Canaanite 
and the Perizzite dwelled " even " then in the laud." Another reason 



106 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

may be given why Moses noticed the circumstance of the Canaanite and 
the Perizzite having been then in the land, which he, immediately after 
the first notice of it, declares that God promised to the seed of Abram. 
The Israelites might thus be most clearly satisfied, that no change had 
taken place in the purpose of God to give them this land ; when 
they were reminded, that at the very time this purpose was declared, 
the very same nation possessed the country, who now occupied it. 

This is puerile, and has nothing to do with the question : 
the introduction of the little word even into the text, 
without any authority, derived from the original Hebrew, 
is unwarrantable. The expressions "And the Canaanite 
was then in the land," " And the Canaanite and the Periz- 
zite dwelled then in the land," seem to have been introdu- 
ced by the writer for no other purpose than to shew that the 
land was at that time occupied by strangers, that Abraham 
and Lot were not its masters, and therefore were obliged 
to conduct themselves with more restraint than their des- 
cendants who drove out these people and had the land all 
to themselves. If the translators of our Bible understood 
the passages in the same sense as Dr Graves, why did they 
not adopt a less ambiguous mode of rendering it unto 
English, by inserting the word even, or by placing the word 
then in such a manner that it might have the force of even 
then? To give it this meaning, they ought to have 
placed it the last word in the sentence; thus — "The 
Canaanite was in the land then" But they have not 
given it this signification, neither have the translators of 
the Septuagint and the Vulgate understood the word then in 
that sense. The former translates the passages thus : 

01 Se Xavavaloi Tore kcltwkovv rrp) yijp. Gen. xii, 6. 
But the Canaanites then inhabited the land. 

01 8e Xavavcuoc tcai ol QepeCpuoi Tore kcltcdicovv ttjv jqv. Gen. xiii, 7. 
But the Canaanites and the PerizzUes then inhabited the land. 

The Latin Vulgate, also, conveys the same significa- 
tion : 

Chananceus auteui tunc erat in terra, Gen. xii. 6. 
But the Canaanite was then in the land. 



13.] ANACHRONISMS. 107 

Eo autem tempore Ckananreus et Pherezseus habitabant in terra 
ilia. Gen. xiii, 7. 

But at that time the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt in that land. 
2. Allusion to the kings of israei. 

The next passage which I shall adduce is still more 
decisive of the age in which the Pentateuch was written. 

Gen, xxxvi, 30. 3 J . Duke Dishon, duke Ezer ; duke Dishan ; there are 
the dukes that came of Hon, among their dukes in the laud of Seir. 
Aud these are the kings 1 li a t reigued in the laud of Edom, before there 
reigned any king over the children of Israel. 

These words prove as plainly as words can express, that 
since that time there I/ad been kings who reigned over 
Israel. Now the first king of Israel was Saul, who reigned 
500 years after the death of Moses. Yet those who main- 
tain that the Pentateuch is the work of Moses, have en- 
deavoured to explain the passage by supposing that Moses 
himself was a sort of king over Israel. Thus in the 
Family Bible is given the following note upon the text 
now under consideration : 

Before Here reigned any ling over the children of Israeli] Moses, 
having recently mentioned the promise of God to Jacob, that " kings 
should come out of his loins/" observes it as remarkable, that Esau's 
posterity should have so many kings, and yet there was no king in Israel 
when he wrote this book. Moses might have written this by inspiration 
or he might well write it without a spirit of prophesy; and we might 
affirm, if necessary, that his meaning is, " All these were kings in Edom, 
hefore his own time f y who was, in a certain sense, the first king in 
Israel, Detjt. xxxiii, 5 ; for he truly exercised royal authority over them, 
as Selden observes. Bji Patrick. See the note on Deut. xxxiii, 5. 

To save the reader the trouble of referring to this 
note, it is here subjoined. 

— he was king in Je*hurv,n^\ Many persons are called kings in Scrip- 
ture, whom we should rather denominate chiefs or leaders. Such is the 
sense of the word in this passage. Moses was the chief the leader, the 
guide of his people, fulfilling the duties of a "king," but he was not 
Icing in the same sense as .David or Solomon, was afterwards. This remark 
reconciles Gen. xxxvi, 31, "These kings reigned in Edom, before 



108 s THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

there reigned any king over the children of Israel," for Moses, though 
he was icing in an inferior sense, yet did not reign, in the stronger sense, 
over tbe children of Israel, their constitution not being monarchical 
under him. Calmefs Dictionary. Moses was king ; that is, under 
God the supreme ruler and governor of Israel. JBp Patriae, Dr Wells. 
Moses w T as a prince or governor, he gave laws and ruled the people. 
BpKidder. Was appointed of God the leader and governor of the 
Israelites. Pyle. Bp Hall. 

These notes, so far from reconciling the two texts, 
actually contradict one another. Moses "was king," 
yet it was "in an* inferior sense," he "was not king' in 
the same sense as David or Solomon." This quibbling style 
of interpretation is highly censurable in historical criticism, 
and never has been allowed, where there w r as not a precon- 
ceived notion, or a particular theory to support. The truth, 
however, of the texts, that have been quoted, lies upon 
the surface, and common sense will be found to be the best 
interpreter. The Pentateuch, which informs us that there 
had been up to that time no king in Israel, was not writ- 
ten until there actually was a king in Israel, and the words, 
he was king in Jeshwun, applied to Moses, have nothing 
to do with the matter: they form part of a chapter descri- 
bing the blessing of Moses, and are in a highly poetical or 
declamatory style, shewing that ( king ' must be interpreted 
not literally, but metaphorically, a prince, leader or gover- 
nor, as it is rendered in that portion of the note which was 
written by Bishop Kidder, Pyle and Bishop Hall. 

3. The ceasing oe tee manna. 

And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until they came 
to a land inhabited ; they did eat manna, until they came unto the 
borders of the land of Canaan. 

This passage might perhaps have passed unnoticed, even 
though Moses died at least one month before the 40 
years were expired, as we read in Deuteronomy xxxiv, 8 : 

And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab 
thirty days &c. 



13.] ANACHRONISMS. 109 

The expression, 40 years, might be understood in round 
numbers, were it not for the fact that the manna had not 
ceased when Moses died. This we learn from Joshua, 
v. 12 ; that 

The manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old 
corn of the land ; neither had the children of Israel manna any more ; 
but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year. 

It appears, then, that an allusion is here made to an 
event, the ceasing of the manna, which is known not to 
have happened, until after the death of Moses. The 
relation of its ceasing could not, therefore, have been 
written by Moses. 

4. The sinew that was not eaten. 

The thigh of Jacob is said to have shrunk after his 
interview and wrestling with the angel. The account is 
found in the XXXI I nd chapter of Genesis, verses 31. 32. 

And as he passed over Penuel, the sun rose upon him, and he halted 
upon his thigh. Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew 
which shrank, which is upon the hollows of the thigh, unto this day : 
because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank. 

This reference to a custom still existing among the 
Israelites seems decidedly to indicate a later date than 
that of Moses. No one has ventured to assert that the 
Mosaic law was observed by the Jews before it was insti- 
tuted by Moses. Now the words of the passage before us 
seem to shew that the Israelites had, for a very long time, 
abstained from eating the sinew which shrank. Moses, 
being conscious that this custom was ordained by himself, 
could hardly have used such language, or have claimed 
such great antiquity as the words seem to indicate. 

8. The Pentateuch betrays a more advanced state of know- 
ledge than prevailed in the time of Moses, 

Many expressions, used in the Pentateuch, indicate a 

more advanced state of knowledge than was likely to exist 

14 



110 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

among the Jews, when they were just • escaped from 
Egyptian bondage. The writer introduces these expres- 
sions apparently for the purpose of leading his readers to 
comprehend his meaning by alluding to something well 
known among them. 

This peculiarity is observable ; 1. In the account of the 
four rivers which watered the garden of Eden : 

The name of the first is Pison : that is it which compasseth the whole 
land of Havilah, where there is gold : and the gold of that land is good ; 
there is bdellium and the onyx-stone. And the name of the second 
river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of- 
Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel : that is it 
which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river i& 
Euphrates. 

The first three of these rivers were little known to the 
Israelites, even in the most civilized periods of their com- 
monwealth : they therefore required to be more fully 
described ; but of the well known Euphrates no description 
w r as necessary. Yet in the time of Moses it may be 
doubted whether the Israelites were not in too ignorant 
and degraded a state, owing to their severe slavery in 
Egypt, to render the above distinction at all applicable. 

2. In the description of the ark resting on Mount Ararat. 

And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventh day of the 
month, upon the mountains of Ararat. 

Now the mountains of Ararat are situated a long way to 
the north-east of the Holy Land, and the Israelites, having 
never crossed the Jordan, but dwelling in the Arabian 
wilderness during all the life of Moses, would not be likely 
to know even where Mount Ararat was to be found. But 
in later times, when the Jews were in correspondence with 
foreign nations, such a description would be intelligible 
and appropriate. 

3. The case is somewhat the same with Damascus 
mentioned in Gen. xiv, 15. 

And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night* 



13.] ANACHRONISMS. Ill 

and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. 

Hobah and Damascus were equally unknown to the 
Israelites, when they first came out of Egypt : the situation 
of Hobah could not, therefore, be more clearly explained 
by reference to that of Damascus. The whole of Palestine 
lay between the Israelites and Syria, of which Damascus 
was the capital. 

4. A similar allusion, less applicable in the time of 
Moses, than in an after-age, is found in Genesis ix, IS. 

And the sons of Noah that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and 
Ham, and Japheth : and Ham is the father of Canaan. 

But the Israelites knew nothing of the Canaanites until 
after the death of Moses, when they were conducted by 
Joshua over the Jordan, and came in contact with the 
Canaanites, Hivites, and other nations, who at that time 
occupied the land of promise. If, however, we suppose 
the Pentateuch to have been written in a later age, when 
the Canaanites were too well known to the Israelites by 
repeated wars, the allusion to them acquires a propriety 
which hardly belongs to it at a time, when these people 
were comparatively unknown. 

5. Mention of the Ishmeelites. 

Gen. xxxvii, 25 — 28. And they [i. e. Joseph's brethren] sat down 
to eat bread : and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a 
company of IsJuueelites came from Gilead with their camels bearing 
spicery and balm and rnyrrh, going to carry it down into Egypt. 

And Judah said unto his brethren, " What profit is it if we slay our 
brother, and conceal his blood? Come, and let us sell him to the 
Ishmeelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother 
and our flesh." And his brethren were content. 

Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen ; and they drew and 
lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to il\e Ishmaelites for 
twenty pieces of silver ; and they brought Joseph into Egypt. 

Here the merchants, to whom Joseph is sold, are twice 
called Ishmeelites, and once Midianites. Bishop Patrick 
explains the inconsistency in the following extraordinary 
manner : 



^^ THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP, 

Mmeelites] They are called below Midianites. These people were 
•near neighbours to each other ; and were joined together in one company 
or caravan, as it is now called. It is the custom, even to this day, in 
the East, for merchants and others to travel through the deserts in large 
companies, for fear of robbers or wild beasts. 

If the passage, to which these comments are annexed, 
occurred in one of the famous Greek or Latin historians, 
Livy, Thucydides, or any other, such a note would not for 
one instant he taken as sound criticism, because none of 
those able writers would be guilty of such an absurdity as 
applying two names, known to be distinct, to the same 
people, within the space of four lines. If some idle and 
weakl) -written tale contained the inconsistency, the mode 
of interpreting it, which Bishop Patrick applies to the 
passage before us, might be passed over without notice, 
but, even then, more from its being of no importance, than 
from its soundness or its propriety. But, when we find 
this discrepancy in a work, which professes to be inspired, 
it is highly desirable that such an inconsistency or 
discrepancy should be cleared up. Why have none of the 
commentators remarked on the singular circumstance of 
there being Ishmaelitish merchants at all, in the time when 
Joseph was sold into Egypt ? Ishmael was Jacob's uncle, 
being brother to Isaac, Jacob's father. The family of 
Ishmael could not have encreased to such an extent in the 
time of which the history treats. The mention of Ishmael- 
ites, in the text before us, indicates that the writer lived 
many generations later, when Ishmaelitish merchants were 
well known. Still less likely is it that there were Midian- 
itish merchants in those days ; for Midian was also one of 
the sons of Abraham, and 54 years younger than Isaac : 
see Genesis xxv, 2. At all events the variation in the name of 
this tribe of merchantmen renders it impossible that Moses 
could have written the narrative ; unless we suppose that, 
when he had it in his power to describe the matter accur- 



13.] ANACHRONISMS. 113 

ately and definitely, he rather chose to relate it in such a 
manner as to puzzle all future ages as to its exact 
meaning. 

6 Allusion to the Sidonians. 

Deut. iii. 9. A'VTiich Hermon the Sidonians call Sirion ; and the 
Amorites call it Shenir. 

But the Sidonians lived a long way off from the deserts 
of Arabia, where Moses and the Israelites wandered, and 
were probably unknown to them. The passage was 
written by some one who not only knew the Sidonians and 
Amorites, but was aware that his readers knew them also, 
and he mentions them for the purpose of rendering his 
narrative more intelligible. 

7 M in ate account of Meribah. 

Numbers xx, 13. This is the water of Meribah; because the 
children of Israel strove with the Lord, and he was sanctified in them. 

This mode of specifying the place was less necessary in 
the time of Moses : but would be requisite if the account 
is to be referred to a period of time, a thousand years 
later than Moses ; when the site of Meribah, however 
interesting, would otherwise have been unknown. 

8 Beer. 

The same observation is applicable to Beer mentioned 
in Numbers xxi, 16 : 

And from thence they went to Beer : that is the well whereof the 
Lord spake unto Moses, " Gather the people together, and I will give 
them water." 

Both of these texts were written to teach the Israelites 
the great things which God had done for their ancestors 
under Moses. 

9 Jericho. 

Numbers xxii, 1. And the children of Israel set forward, and 
pitched in the plains of Moab on this side Jordan by Jericho. 

Jericho was but a small town ; and I should think 

15 



114 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

unknown to the Israelites, before they crossed the Jordan. 

10. Bedstead of Og. 

Deuteronomy iii, 11. For only Og king of Bashan remained of the 
remnant of giants ; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron ; is it 
not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon ? nine cubits was the length 
thereof, and five cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. 

Dr Pyle (in the Family Bible) remarks ^on this passage : 

It is probable, that either Og conveyed his iron bedstead, with other 
furniture of his palace, into the country of the Ammonites, to prevent 
their falling into the hands of the Israelites : or else the Ammonites 
had taken it from him in some former conquest, and kept it as a monu- 
ment of their victory. 

Either of these cases would be probable, if it could be 
first proved that Moses wrote this verse, and that he knew 
of Og's bed being kept in Rabbath. But as Rabbath was 
not taken by the Israelites until the time of David, as we 
read in II Sam. xii, 26, 

And Joab fought against Kabbah of the children of Ammon, and took 
the royal city, 

it is not likely that the Israelites knew anything about 
the bedstead of king Og until then. In the reign of 
David, five hundred years had passed since Og lived, and 
his bedstead had consequently become an object of curi- 
osity, like the great bed of Ware, which is still shewn in 
that town, though only three hundred years old. It is 
hardly possible that Moses knew any thing about this bed- 
stead of king Og, afterwards so famous. 

9. Variation in the name given to the priest of Midian 
father-in-law of Moses, and to Joshua, 

It is not probable that Moses should designate his own 
father-in-law by three different names. Yet we find he is 
called in one passage Reuel, in a second Jethro, and Raguel 
in a third. The first passage is in Exodus, chap, ii, vv. 
16—21. 



13.] VARIOUS NAMES OF JETHRO. 115 

Exodus ii, 16 — 21. Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters 
and they came and drew water and filled the troughs to water their 
father's flock. And the shepherds came and drove them away: but 
Moses stocd up and helped them, and watered their flock. And when 
they came to Reuel their father, he said " How is it that ye are come so 
soon to-day ? " And they said " An ^Egyptian delivered us out of the 
hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered 
the flock." And he said unto his daughters, "And where is he ? why 
is it that ye have left the man ? call him that he may eat bread. And 
Moses was content to dwell with the man : and he gave Moses Zipporah 
his daughter. 

Here he is plainly called Reuel, but in the 18th chapter 
of the same book, v. 1, he is as evidently designated by the 
name Jethro. 

Exod. xviii, 1. When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father- 
in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his 
people, and that the Lord had brought Israel oat of Egypt; then Jethro, 
Moses' father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her 
back &c. 

In a third passsage the same individual is called Raguel. 

Lumbers x, 29. And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel 
the Midianite, Moses's father-in-law, " We are journeying unto the 
place &c. 

In the last of these quotations the name, Raguel,. is not 
unlike the first, Reuel : but this very similarity encreases 
the improbability that Moses himself should have written 
them so. The history of the world does not furnish a 
parallel instance : no other book can be mentioned, in 
which the writer, describing a near relative of his own, has 
called him by three different appellations with no allus- 
ion to the identity of the individual, and giving no reason 
for his being so variously named. The interpretation, 
which I put on this and other remarkable passages, simpli- 
fies the whole matter : the three different accounts have 
been taken from three separate documents, and the Penta- 
teuch, where they meet, is consequently a compilation, and 
not an original work. 



116 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

A similar variation will be found between those passages 
of the Pentateuch where the name of Joshua occurs : 

Exodus xxiv, 13. And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua : and 
Moses went up into the mount of God. 

Numbers xiii, 16. These are the names of the men which Moses sent 
to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jeho- 
shua. 

Deuteronomy xxxii, 44. And Moses came and spake all the words of 
this song in the ears of the people, he and Hoshea the son of Nun. 

Thus four forms of the name occur in our Bibles, but in 
the Hebrew there are only three : and in the Septuagint 
and Vulgate translations, there are only two. Their cor- 
respondence may be thus shewn : 

Eng. 

Oshea (Numbers xiii, 1 6) 
Ho^hea (Deut. xxxii, 44) 
Joshua (Exod. xxiv, 13) 
Jehoshua (Numb, xiii, 16) 

10. Argument derived from the use of the expression " unto 
this day" 
There is a remarkable mode of expression, occurring in 
several parts of the Pentateuch, which excludes the possi- 
bility of Moses, or indeed of any one having written it, 
until long after the time of the events related in the order 
of the history : I mean the words " until this day," by 
which is of course meant the day or time when the author 
lived and wrote his history. As this expression occurs in 
some of the passages which have been already cited for 
other purposes, it is unnecessary to repeat them, but to refer 
to the places where they are given, and to cite at present 
the remaining passages of the Pentateuch, where the same 
expression is to be found. It must, however, be premised 
that in some of these the expression " unto this day," is 
appropriate as referring to the time of Moses himself, but 
i i others, where the principal event belongs to the age of 
Moses, and the result, effect, or other posterior event is 



Heb. 


Sept. 


Vulg. 


yunn 1 ? 


'Avar} 


Oshee 


^wm 


'Irjcrovs 


Josue 


ytmm 


'Irjarovs 


Josue 


wm 


'It/ctou? 


Josue 



13.] 'unto this day/ 117 

referred to a future age, we can only conclude that the 
writer, in whose life-time the posterior event happened, 
lived at a later period than the age of Moses. 

1. 
The first place, in which these words are found, is 

Genesis xix, 37. 

And the first-born [i. a. of the daughters of Lot] bare a son, and 
called his name Moab : the same is the father of the Moabites unto 
this day. 

Here, no inference can be drawn to ascertain the age of 
the writer. The whole period of time, during which 
Moab existed as a nation, is equally applicable to the words 
f unto this day.' If, however, it could be shewn that the 
Moabites did not exist as a nation in the time of Moses, 
this passage would furnish the same proof which is drawn 
from others where the words occur, that Moses could 
not have been the writer. But, as the Moabites were pro- 
bably a tribe, even in the time of the Exodus, the words 
before us may have been written even by Moses himself. 

2. 
Gen. xxii, 14. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah- 
jireh : as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen. 

This verse also, as far as concerns the words ( unto 
this day ' may have been written by Moses ; but it is not 
equally obvious in what sense Moses could be made to say 
that his readers might still see the place Jehovah-jireh. 
He had never seen it himself, and probably knew nothing 
about it. Jehovah-jireh was in Canaan : and the Israelites 
had hitherto had no communication with the people of that 
country. 

3. 

The third place, where we find the same words 'unto this 
day/ [Gen. xxxii, 32] has been already cited at page 109. 
This instance, however, has no similarity to the two prece- 
ding. The custom of refraining from eating the sinew which 
hrank, is nowhere shewn in the Bible to have existed be- 



118 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. CHAP.] 

fore the time of Moses : it was he who instituted the cus- 
tom, wherefore it would be highly inappropriate for him to 
advert to the length of time that the custom had lasted. 
It could by no possibility have lasted longer than a few 
years. A law-giver who alludes to a custom, of which he 
was himself the originator, says " Wherefore we still ob- 
serve the custom at the present day," not " until this day.'* 
The word until denotes a prior date and a posterior date, 
"fro?n the former until the latter," and in general implies a 
long interval. Such an interval cannot be traced, if Moses 
wrote the words "until this day." 

11. Allusion to the want of a regular government 
In the 12th chapter of Deuteronomy, we find a variety 
of admonitions about the manner in which the Israelites 
should conduct their various offerings and sacrifices, when 
they should come into the promised land. In verse 8 we 
read : 

Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every 
man whatsoever is right in his own eyes- 

This is the very expression which occurs so often in the 
book of Judges, in reference to the time when there was 
no king in Isrcel. It is certainly curious that the same 
form of expression should occur in the text before us, and 
leads to the suspicion that it was written at the same time 
and by the same author who uses the same form of words 
elsewhere. The note in the Family Bible, to Deut. xii, 8, 
is from Bp Patrick : 

Every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.] This does not mean 
that there was no good order kept among them, or that they were at 
liberty to sacrifice where they pleased : bnt that in such an uncertain 
state, when they were removing from place to place, many took the li- 
berty in those matters to do as they thought good. 

This annotation, like too many similar ones found in 
our Commentators, is grounded on the supposition that the 
words " every man doing what was right in his own eyes ** 
can have two different meanings. There may, no doubt 



14.] BOOK OF JOSHUA EXAMINED. 119 

be different degrees of force attached to the words ; but, 
in kind, their meaning is invariable : they imply a great 
license unrestrained by a settled and regular form of 
government : and this state of license certainly did not 
prevail in the time of Moses, whose punishments of, crime 
were, in all cases, prompt and severe. I therefore refer 
the form of speech to a later day, even to those lawless 
times w T hich followed the Babylonish Captivity. 



CHAPTER 14. 

Book op Joshua examined — Anachronisms and othee internal 
evidence, shewing that it was written in a later age. 

The book of Joshua is generally understood to have 
been written by the great captain whose name it bears, and 
who succeeded Moses in the supreme command of the 
Israelitish people. In support of this opinion the same 
arguments are usually adduced which have been cited in 
the previous part of this work concerning the books of 

MoseS, GENERAL CONSENT and INTERNAL EVIDENCE. I USe the 



120 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

expression general instead of universal consent, because, if 
the reader will turn back to page 38, where an account is 
given of the supposed author of this book, he will 
observe that " there is not a perfect agreement among the 
learned, respecting the author of this book." Even this 
modified form of expression loses much of its force, when 
we consider that no ancient author either sacred or profane, 
before the Christian era, mentions the name of Joshua or 
gives the least hint that there was any book written by 
him. It is therefore unnecessary to waste time in refuting 
this argument of general consent, which means nothing 
more than a vague opinion, entertained by some but 
rejected by others, and only beginning to shew itself four- 
teen hundred years after the death of Joshua. 

But the second argument, of internal evidence, requires 
to be noticed, because it is put forward with more con- 
fidence, on the strength of two passages which occur in the 
book before us. The first of these is Joshua v, 1 : 

And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, which were 
on the side of Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites 
which were by the sea, heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of 
Jordan from before the children of Israel, until we were passed 
over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any 
more, because of the children of Israel. 

Bishop Tomline remarks on this passage : 

The use of the word " we " proves that this book was written by 
Joshua, or by some one else alive at the time. 

This inference is obvious, and cannot be objected to, if 
it can be shewn that the words of the text, until WE were 
passed over, are a correct translation of the corresponding 
words in the original Hebrew Bible. This, however, is not 
the case : the passage before us is one of the parts of the 
Bible, which have been corrupted by time, and the 
error has arisen in the present instance from the great 
similarity between the Hebrew words Wiy aberanoo we 



14.] BOOK OF JOSHUA EXAMINED. 121 

passed over " and D^QV aberoom " he caused them to pass 
over." These words are very similar, and though the 
common text of the Hebrew bible now reads aberanoo, 
which gives the sense of " we passed over/' yet this was 
not the old reading of the passage, but aberoom "he 
caused them to pass over," and among the various readings 
of the text aberoom actually is found : but the Hebrew 
letter q m has been carelessly divided into two letters 2 and 
\ mi, by the copyist, and the translators of the Bible, not 
perceiving the error, and perhaps tempted to make a 
choice which tended to give to the book the value of a 
contemporary record, have given the passage that inter- 
pretation which has misled so many critics, and on which 
is built so fallacious a theory. 

That the error is such as I describe it, and consequently 
that the theory built upon it is fallacious, must inevitably 
result from the accuracy of our present statement, which 
becomes almost a matter of certainty from the concurrence 
of the Septuagint and Vulgate translations. In the former 
the whole verse is rendered thus : 

Kal iyevero &>? iqKovaav ol /3acrt\eLS tcov 'Afioppalcov ol -qaav irepav 
tov 'IopSdvov, Kal ol (3acrCkeZ<$ ttjs ^ocvlkt]^ ol irapa rrjv OdXacrcrav, 
on aire^Tqpave Kvpios 6 (9eo? tov 'IopSdvrjv iroTapuov etc tcov efiirpoo-Qev 
tcov vlcov 'Ivpaqk 'EN Till AIABAINEIN 'ATTOTZ, Kal 
&TaKr)o~av avTcov al hidvoiai Kal KaT€7r\dyr)crav, Kal ovk rjv iv 
avrols cppovrjtris ovSe/xla diro irpocrcoiTov tcov vlcov 'Icrpo.rjX. 

The translation of the passage in the Latin Vulgate is in 
harmony with the preceding : 

Postquam ergo audierunt otnnes reges Aniorrheeorum, qui habitabant 
trans Jordanem ad Occideritalem plagain, et cuucti reges Clianaan, qui 
propinqua possidebant Magni Maris loca, quod siccasset Dominusfluenta 
Jordanis coram filiis Israel, donec transirent, dissolutum est cor 
eorum, et non remansit in iis spiritus, tiinentiurn introitum filiorurn Israel. 

In the German translations of the bible the error has 
been corrected and the proper reading of the word restored. 

It appears, then, that the first passage which has been 

16 



122 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

made the basis for the belief that the book of Joshua is a 
contemporary writing, has been incorrectly translated in 
our common English Bibles, and consequently the opinion 
built upon it must fall to the ground. 

The second passage which has been selected as proving 
that the book of Joshua was written in or immediately 
after the time of Joshua is found in Chapter vi, v. 25. 

Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household 
and all that she had ; and she divelleth in Israel unto this day ; 
because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. 

It is argued that if she was dwelling in Israel even unto 
this day, i. e. in the time of the writer, the book must have 
been written in the life-time of Rahab. 

It may be replied to this that even if Rahab was alive 
when the book of Joshua was written, the words even ' until 
this day ' seem to imply that many years had elapsed, and 
that Rahab was consequently a very old woman. Joshua, 
also, must have been a long time dead ; for he was more 
than eighty years old, when the city of Jericho was taken. 

Bat it is an error to infer that Rahab was alive when the 
passage before us was written. It means that her descen- 
dants were then still living among the Israelites, and not 
she herself. This is one of the most common forms of 
speech found in all the Jewish writings : Moab, Amnion, 
Israel, denote, not the individuals who bore those names, 
but the whole of their posterity. It is hardly necessary to 
give instances of this form of speech : one only may 
suffice. In the book of Judges ch. i, v. 3, we read : 

Judah said unto Simeon his brother " Come up with me into my lot, 
that we may fight against the Canaanites : and I likewise will go with 
thee into thy lot." So Simeon went with him. 

As Judah and Simeon had been dead two, three or 
perhaps even four hundred years, it is evident that it was 
their descendants and not themselves, who made a covenant 
to assist one another in subjugating the Canaanites, 



14.] BOOK OF JOSHUA EXAMINED. 12C 

As I am not aware that any other passages have been 
quoted from the book of Joshua as furnishing Internal 
Evidence that it was written during or soon after the time 
of Joshua : we may at once proceed to enumerate the 
passages which furnish internal evidence that it certainly 
was not written until long after his time. 

That the reader's attention miy not be wearied by an 
affectation of method, which is no longer necessary here, 
because it has been adopted in Chap. 13 for the purpose of 
shewing what the subject is capable of, I shall briefly 
notice each passage by itself, following the order, not of a 
regular argument digested under separate heads, but of 
the chapter and verse where these passages occur. 

Chap, iv, 9. And Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of 
Jordan, in the place where the feet of the priests which bare the ark of 
the covenant stood ; and they are there unto this day. 

If the stones had not been there a long time, the writer 
of the book would not have used such an expression. It 
would have been in no wise remarkable that the twelve 
stones or pillars should have stood forty or fifty years : 
but the writer means that they had stood 500, or perhaps 
1000 years. 

Chap, iv, 14. On that day the Lord magnified Joshua in the sight of 
all Israel; and they feared him, as they feared Moses, all the days of his 
life. 

Again, at chapter vi, verse 27 : 

So the Lord was with Joshua ; and his fame was noised throughout 
all the country. 

If Joshua wrote this of himself, the words are a serious 
imputation of his modesty ; if written by a contemporary, 
the information conveyed by them could hardly have been 
necessary ; but if written by a historian in a later age, 
the passage becomes both natural and appropriate. 

Chap. v. 3. And Joshua made him sharp knives and circumcised the 
children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins. 



124 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES, [CHAP. 

Bishop Patrick observes on this verse : 

Some understand the Hebrew words thus translated, Gibeah-haaraloth, 
to be the name by which the place where they were circumcised was 
afterwards called. 

I have no doubt that the name was given to the place 
afterwards from the deed done there by Joshua : the 
expression evidently savours of a later age. 

Chap, v, 9. And the Lord said unto Joshua, "This day have I rolled 
away the reproach of Egypt from off you/' Wherefore the name of the 
place is called Gilgal unto this day. 

Writers are not so particular in recording the reasons 
why places are named,, whilst the fact is fresh in the 
memory of every one ; and in the verse before us 
this mark of a later age is strengthened by the additional 
words unto this day. 

Chap, vii, v. 26. And they raised over him [Achor] a great heap 
of stones unto this day. So the Lord turned from the fierceness of his 
anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called the valley of Achor 
unto this day. 

Chap, viii, v. 28 — 29. And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap 
for ever, even a desolation unto this day. And the king of Ai he 
[Joshua] hanged on a tree until eventide : and as soon as the sun was 
down, Joshua commanded that they should take his carcase down from 
the tree, and cast it at the entering of the gate of the city, and raise 
thereon a great heap of stones, that remalnelh unto this day. 

The words that remairieth do not occur in the original 
Hebrew : they have been added by the translators to make 
the sense complete. The only inference which both these 
last quoted passages carry with them,, concerning the age 
when they were written, is that it was a very long .time 
after the death of Achor in the first text, and of the king 
of Ai in the second. A similar inference is deduced from 
the verse which follows : 

Chap, ix, v. 27. And Joshua made them [the Gibeonites] that day 
hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the 



14.] BOOK OF JOSHUA EXAMINED. 125 

altar of the Lord, even unto this day, in the place winch lie should 
choose. 

The " place which the Lord should choose " was finally 
Jerusalem, and, if these words were written in the later 
period of the Israelitish government, the Lord had already 
chosen Jerusalem to be the site of his Temple and the place 
of his worship. 

Chap, x, v. 1. Now it came to pass, when Adonizedec king of Jerusa- 
lem had heardhow Joshuahadtakeu Ai, and had utterly destroyed it ; &c. 

This chapter is full of names that did not exist until 
many years afterwards, some more, some less. The first is 
Jerusalem, which will be noticed in page 127. Bethhoron, 
mentioned at v. 10, was built by an Israelitish lady after 
the conquest, as we learn from I Chron. vii, 23, 24 : 

And when he [Ephraim] went in to his wife, she conceived, and bare 
a son, and he called Ins name Beriah, because it went evil with his house. 
And his daughter was Slierah, who built Beth-horon the nether, and the 
upper, and Uzzen-sherah. 

The comparison of these texts involves an anachronism. 
Sherah was only the fourth in descent from Jacob — thus : 
Joseph, Ephraim, Beriah, Sherah. If the Israelites remain- 
ed 430 years in Canaan, as appears from several texts of 
Scripture, it is impossible that only one generation, Beriah, 
could have intervened between Ephraim, who was a child 
when Jacob went down into Egypt, and Sherah who built 
Bethhoron. But this subject is more extensive, and will be 
considered more fully hereafter. 

Chap, x, v. 13. 14. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, 
until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not 
this written in the book of Jasher ? So the sun stood still in the midst 
of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there 
was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto 
the voice of a man : for the Lord fought for Israel. 

Here we obtain a fact that bears with great force upon 
our present argument. The writer of the book of Joshua 



126 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

quotes an earlier work to which he refers his readers for a 
more full account of the miracle which he records, namely 
the arresting the sun and moon in their flight, that the 
Israelites might he avenged on their enemies. It is im- 
possible to conceive that Joshua himself, who wrought that 
miracle, could have referred his readers to another book 
in which a better account of it was to be found. It is 
far more likelv that a compiler, in a later age, finding this 
miraculous event well described in a book still popular in 
his time, called the Book of Jasher, should have referred 
his readers to that book, for further information. 

But this is not the only observation elicited by the men- 
tion made of the book of Jasher in this place. The same 
work is quoted in II Sam. i, 17. 18 : 

And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jona- 
than his son. Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use 
of the bow : behold it is written in the book of Jasher. 

Here we learn that the book of Jasher contains the 
narrative of king David teaching his subjects the use of 
archery in war. The book of Jasher was therefore writ- 
ten in or after the reign of David : and the book of 
Joshua, which quotes the book of Joshua, must have 
been written later still. 

The burial-place of the five kings was marked out to 
posterity by a lasting monument, a heap of stones which 
Joshua caused to be placed over the cave where they were 
buried. 

Chap. x. 27. And it came to pass at the time of the going down of the 
sun, that Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees, 
and cast them into the cave wherein they had been hid, and laid great 
stones in the cave's month, which remain until thu very day. 

Chap. xiii. v. 13. Nevertheless the children of Israel expelled not the 
Geshurites nor the Maachathites : but the Geshurites and the Maacha- 
thites dwell among the Israelites until this day. 

Chap. xiv. 14. Hebron therefore became the inheritance of Caleb the 
son of Jephunneh the Kenezite unto this day, because that he wholly 
followed the Lord God of Israel. And the name of Hebron before 



14.] BOOK OF JOSHUA EXAMINED. 127 

was Kirjath-Arba ; which Arba was a great man among the Anakirns ; 
iiid the land had rest from war. [See also xv, 14 — 19 j 

Every part of this verse shews a later writer and a later 
age. The city had lost its ancient name of Kirjath-arba, 
and was known by the name of Hebron : it had become 
the inheritance of Caleb, by which is implied that Caleb 
was dead and his descendants were in possession of it, un- 
til this day, i. e. for a great length of time. And this is 
further confirmed by the concluding words, "And the land 
had rest from war." The war of the invasion was over, and the 
children of Israel had quiet possession of the country, when 
the book of Joshua was written. 

Chap, xv, 8. 9. 10. And the border went up by the valley of the 
son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jeru- 
salem : and the border went up to the top of the mountain that iieth 
before the valley of Hinnom westward, winch is at the end of the valley 
of the giants northward : and the border was drawn from the top of the 
hill unto the fountain of the water of Nephtoah, and went out to the 
cities of mount Ephron ; and the border was drawn to Baalah, which 
is Kirjath-jearim : and the border compassed from Baalah westward unto 
mount Seir, aud passed along unto the side of mount Jearim, which is 
Chesalon, on the north side, and went down to Beth-sheinesh, and pas- 
sed on to Timnah. 

The observations made in Chapter 13, concerning the 
anachronisms which occur in the names of places, apply in 
all their force to this passage : we have three distinct places 
here mentioned, each of them designated both by its anci- 
ent and modern appellation, Jebusi, Jerusalem — Baalah, 
Kirjath-jearim — mount Jearim, Chesalon. We know, also, 
that Jebusi did not receive the name of Jerusalem until the 
reign of David, proving that the book, in which the word 
Jerusalem occurs, was not written until the reign of David, 
or that, if written before that time, it has since been inter- 
polated. Of these two probabilities the former is the 
stronger : because we find it confirmed by the last verse of 
the same chapter : 



128 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Chap, xv, 63. As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites 
dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day. 

It has been asserted that these words can apply only to 
the few years which immediately followed the death of 
Joshua ; for, say the Commentators, the Jebusites were 
then driven out, as we read the account in Judges i, 7. 8. 
We shall find, on enquiry, that they were not then driven 
out ; at least, it is not so stated in Judges i, 7. 8, nor can 
any such meaning be inferred from the narrative there 
contained. 

Judges i, 7. 8. And Adonibezek said, '"Threescore and ten kings, 
having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat 
under my table : as I have done, so God hath requited me. And they 
brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died. 

Now the children of Judah had fouo-ht against Jerusalem, and had 
taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city 
on fire. 

The Jebusites, no doubt, fled out of the city, before it 
was set on fire, but a portion of the city, the citadel, was 
certainly in their hands in the time of David, and the two 
nations seem to have lived together in the city and adjoin- 
ing territory, at peace, during the whole time that the 
Judges bare rule. 

Chap, xvi, 10 And they {the Epftraimites] drove not out the Cana- 
anites that dwelt in Gezer : but the Canaanites dwell among the Eph- 
raimites unto this day, and serve under tribute. 

Chap, xvii, 12. 13. Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive 
out the inhabitants of those cities, but the Canaanites would dwell in 
the land. Yet it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxen 
strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute ; but did not utterly 
drive them out. 

Compare with this the account given in Judges i, 
28—29. 

It came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites 
to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out, Neither did Ephraim 



14.] BOOK OF JOSHUA EXAMINED. 129 

drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer but the Canaanites dwelt 
in Gezer among them. 

Chap, xix, 47. And the coast of the children of Dan went out too 
little for them: therefore the children of Dan went up to fight against 
Leshem [called Laish in Judges, chap. 18, v. 29.], and took it and smote 
it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it and dwelt therein, 
and called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father. 

This is the same affair, which is related in detail in the 
18th chapter of Judges. According to the chronology 
given in the margin of our Bibles, and generally received 
by the learned, this happened about thirty years after the 
death of Joshua. The anachronism is explained in the 
following manner by the editors of the Family Bible, quot- 
ing from Bishop Patrick and Shuckford : 

It is supposed that Ezra or some other, thought good in aftertimes 
to insert this verse here, in order to complete the account of the Dau- 
ites' possession. 

If this be received as sound criticism, History will truly 
be brought down to a level with the most worthless pas- 
times that man can choose for his amusement : it will be 
literally, no better than an almanach, which is altered year 
by year to adapt it to the existing state of things. If the 
book of Joshua were indeed the work of the great man 
whose name it bears, no later historian would have ven- 
tured to impair its value by adding to or detracting from 
its contents. 

Chap, xxiv, 20. 30. And it came to pass after these things, that 
Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being an hundred 
and te.i years old. And they buried him in the border of his inherit- 
ance in Timnath-Serah, which is mount Ephraim, on the north side of 
the hill of Gaash. 

If Joshua died at the age of 110 years, and his death is 
recorded in the book which passes by his name, we need 
no farther proof that this book could not have been writ- 
ten until after Joshua was dead. But this limitation of 

17 



130 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

its origin to some period after the death of Joshua must be 
still further qualified : for in the next verse of the same 
chapter we read as follows : 

Chap, xxiv, v. 31. And Israel served the Lord all the days of 
Joshua, and all the days of the elders that over-lived Joshua, and which 
had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel. 

How could Joshua write that Israel served the Lord a 
long time after he was dead, nay — after all those who out- 
lived him were dead also ? If some later writer, as Samuel 
or Ezra, inserted all these additions to the original work 
of Joshua, he would certainly have not done so in a clan- 
destine or covert manner, but with a note attached, that 
€< so far is the work of Joshua, and the continuation is by a 
later hand." Even the monkish chroniclers have display- 
ed this species of common honesty : for we always, or 
nearly always, find a mark attached to those passages 
which begin the writing of a new author — " Hactenus 
dominus Radulfus scripsit Chronica &c." or " Explicit 
dominus Rogerus, incipit dominus Matthaeus. &c." Even 
the supposition of these additions made by later writers, 
goes far towards a concession of the fact which I would 
establish ; namely, that we have not the Hebrew writings 
in their original state, but that they are a compilation, put 
together after the nation had returned, with fresh lights 
and a fresh intellectual impetus, from Babylon. 



15.] BOOK OF JUDGES EXAMINED. 131 



CHAPTER 15. 

The book of Judges similarly examined. 

The editor of the Pictorial Bible gives an account of this 
book, which contains many remarkable observations : 
I therefore copy it without abridgment : 

The name of this book is taken from the title of the functionaries 
whose actions and administration it principally relates. This name is 
D^W, skopJtetim, plural of tDDtl^ shophet, a judge. This word 
designates the ordinary magistrates, properly called judges ; and is here 
also applied to the chief rulers, perhaps because riding misjudging are so 
intimately connected in the east, that sitting in judgment is one of the 
principal employments of an oriental monarch (see Gesenius in tOEtl?.) 
It is remarkable that the Carthaginians who were descended from the 
Tyrians and spoke Hebrew, called their chief magistrates by the same 
name : but the Latins, who had no such sh, as the Hebrews and Carthagi- 
nians had, and as we and the Germans have, wrote the word with a 
sharp s, and, adding a Latin termination, denominated them Suffetes* 
These functionaries are compared to the Eoman consuls, and appear in 
office as well as name, to have borne considerable resemblance to the 
Hebrew shojjhetim, " judges/' For some observations on the Hebrew 
" judges/' and the nature of their administration, see the note on 
chap, ii, 16. 

The book is easily divisible into two parts; one ending with chap, 
xvi, contains the history of the Judges, from Othniel to Samson ; and 
the other, which occupies the rest of the book, forms a sort of appendix, 
relating particular transactions, which, not to interrupt the regular his- 
tory, the author seems to have reserved for the end. If these transac- 
tion had been placed in order of time, we should probably have found 
them in a much earlier portion of the work, as the incidents related 
seem to have occurred not long after the death of Jcsh.ia. 

The author of the book is unknown. Some ascribe it to Samuel, 
some to Hezekiah, and others to Ezra. The reason which has principally 
influenced the last determination of the authorship is found in chap, 
xviii, 30 : — " He and his son were priests to the tribe of Dan until 



132 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

the day of the captivity of the land/' Bat this may have referred to 
the captivity of the ark among the Philistines, or to some particular 
captivity of the tribe of Dan, or rather of that part of the tribe settled 
in the, north ; or the reference may have been to both circumstances. 
It is aho possible that the clause, " until the day of the aaptivity of the 
land/' may actually have been added after the captivity. That the 
book itself was not then written is evident from the absence of Chal- 
dee words, which so often occur in the books which we know to have 
been posterior to that event. Most of the Jewish and Christian com- 
mentators assign the authorship to Samuel ; probably because internal 
evidence places it pretty clearly about his time, and in his time he is the 
most likely person to whom the authorship could be attributed. That 
it was written after the establishment of the monarchical government, 
appears from the habit which the author has of saying that the event he 
is relating happened in the time when " there was no king in Israel; " 
which renders it evident that there was a king when he wrote. But 
that it was written very soon after the establishment of kingly govern- 
ment is no less clear from other passages. Thus we see, from chap, i, 
21, that the Jebusites were still in Jerusalem in the time of the author; 
but this ceased to be the case in the time of David, by whom they were 
expelled from that city. (2 Sam. v, 6). So also, in 2 Sam. vi, 21, 
there is a distinct and precise reference to a fact recorded in Judges ix, 
53, which seems another proof that this book was written before the 
second book of Samuel : but this does not appear to be of a conclusive 
nature; as the fact may have been known to David, even had the book 
of Judges not been then written. Upon the whole, there is little 
question that the book was composed, in its present form, either in the 
reign of Saul, or during the first seven years of the reign of David : and 
this renders it more probable that it was compiled, from the public 
registers and records, by Samuel, than by any of the other prophets, 
priests or kings, to whom it is assigned.* 

The chronology of this book is attended with much difficulty, and 
is stated by various chronologers with very serious difference. This 
chiefly arises from the period of servitudes, being by some counted as 

* The uncertainty which attends this quest on, is admitted by all writers. 

It is unknown by whom the hook of the Judges was composed, although most probably by different 
persons at different times ; as it appears to be a collection of detached pieces of history, in which the 
chronological order is not strictly observed, and in some places is not easy to adjust. These accounts 
relate to a period extremely tumultuous and troublesome ; a period of barbarism ignorance and anar- 
shy ; in which the Israelites, almost continually harassed by intestine commotions, oppressed by 
foreign enemies or employed in repelling their aggressions, had little leisure to attend to the accuracy 
of their national annals. Biglajs1>'s Letters on History, page 75 — 76. 



15.] BOOK OF JUDGES EXAMINED. 133 

part of the years of the judges, while others count them separately ; 
and also from judges being thought by some to have been successive, 
whom others consider to have been contemporary in different parts of 
Palestine. There are some also, who prolong the account by supposing 
several anarchies or interregnums, the duration of which the history 
does not mention. The result of Dr Hales' s elaborate investigations 
gives 498 years (B. C. 1608 to B. C. 1110) from the passage of the 
Jordan to the election of Saul; and 400 years (B. C. 1582 to 1182) 
from the death of Joshua to the death of Samson, which is the period 
more peculiarly comprehended in the present book. The period is, 
however, frequently stated as little exceeding 300 years. 

It may be gathered from this extract that those who 
assign an early elate to this book, are obliged to admit that 
it could not at all events have been written earlier than the 
reign of Saul or David, that is 300, or 400, and according 
to Dr Hales, nearly 500 years after the passage of the 
river Jordan. I shall proceed to enumerate the passages 
found in the book itself, which give evidence of a late 
origin ; among these are those texts which have led writers 
to limit its composition as not later, ai all events, than the 
reign of David, but which may be shewn by no means to 
warrant such an inference. 

Chap, i, 21. And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the 
Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem ; bat the Jebusites dwell with the 
children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day. 

The Jebusites were certainly reduced to submission by 
David, but not driven out : they still dwelt in the land with 
the Israelites: the words 'unto this day' may therefore 
apply to the time after the Captivity. See pp. 127—128. 

Chap, i, 26. And the man went into the land of the Hittites, and 
built a city, and called the name thereof Luz : which is the name thereof 
unto this day. 

Chap, xvii, 6. In those days there was no king in Israel, but every 
man did that which was right in his own eyes. 

Chap, xviii, i. In those days there was no king in Israel : and in 



134 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

those days the tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell 
in; for unto that day all their inheritance had not fallen unto them 
among the tribes of Israel. 

Chap, xviii, 30. And the children of Dan set up the graven image : 
and Jonathan, the son of Gersliom, the son of Manasseh, he and his 
sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of 
the land. 

The Babylonish ' captivity ' is called the ' captivity ' par 
excellence. The plain meaning of the words cannot be 
evaded ; and this book was written after the Babvlonish 
captivity. 

Chap, xix, i. And it came to pass in those days, when there was no 
king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of 
mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Beihlehem-judah. 



CHAPTER 16. 



The book op Ruth examined. 



The book of Ruth, as has been already said, is properly 
part of the book of Judges, from which it has been sepa- 
rated, for no very obvious reasons. From its brevity it is 
not likely to contain many passages to aid us in our 
present enquiry. Those which I have discovered, are the 
following : 

Chap, i, v. 1. Now it came to pass in the days when the Judges 
ruled, that there was a famine in the land. 

This was written after the Judges had ceased to rule; 



16.] BOOK OF RUTH EXAMINED. 135 

and consequently the work is not contemporary with Ruth, 
who lived " when the Judges ruled." 

Chap, iv, v. 21 — 22. And Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed, 
and Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David. 

Bishop Patrick's note to this is deserving of notice: 

Salmon married Bahab, and therefore lived at the time of the Israel- 
ites' first entrance into Canaan. Xow between this period and the birth 
of David, are computed 366 years. Thus, as only four generations are 
mentioned, we must either suppose that some names of persons, who 
come between, are omitted, (for which we have no warrant), or that, as 
is more probable, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse, all had their children 
born to them at a very advanced period of their lives. 

I propose to adopt a different and more natural solution 
of the difficulty. In Chronicles ii, 11, Salmon is named 
f Salma ; ' which shews that there are some doubtful points 
in this genealogy. This was likely to be the case ; for the 
book being compiled, out of original papers, like all the 
rest of the Jewish History, after the captivity of Babylon, 
the compilers were likely to be puzzled by many discre- 
pancies of this nature, and, choosing to preserve, as much 
as possible, the form of their original sources, they have 
retained even their errors also. 



CHAPTER 17. 
First Book of Samuel examined. 

The two books of Samuel form but one in the Hebrew 
Canon. In the Septuagint and Vulgate translations they 



136 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

are called the first and second books of Kings, and those 
which we call the first and second books of Kings, are 
termed the third and fourth books of Kings. This diversity 
is to be regretted ; ancient histories should, as far as is 
possible, be kept in their original form. There seems to be 
no adequate reason for classifying these books, as they are 
classified in our Bibles : for they contain quite as much of 
the history of David as of Samuel. But the impression 
prevailed that Samuel was their author ; and as Protestants, 
in endeavouring to run counter to Roman Catholics, have 
magnified the importance of the Old Testament, exactly in 
proportion as they have decried the use of reason, the 
translators have so arranged the books as to produce the 
most striking effect ; and thus an individual existence has 
been given to that which has none, but which really is only 
a part of the whole. Yet notwithstanding, first, the separ- 
ation of Samuel from Kings, and, then, its division into two 
parts, the work bears on the face of it the strong fact that 
it could not have been written by Samuel : for the 25th 
chapter of the first book begins w'th the words "And 
Samuel died" ! Thus more than half of the whole was 
obviously composed by a later writer. But we shall see, by 
an examination of the book in order, that the whole of it 
owes its origin to a date later than that of Samuel. 

Cetap, v, v. 5. Therefore neither the priests of Dagon nor any that 
come into Dagon' s house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod 
unto this day. 

Bishop Patrick has a note on the words e unto this day ' : 

The day when Samuel wrote this book : when the events happened, he 
was a youth : but the book was written when he -was advanced in years. 

The space of time between this event and Samuel's death 
was about forty years, — not long enough to justify the 
expression 'unto this day.' It must not be taken for granted 
that Samuel wrote this book ; and the verse before us tells 



17.] BOOK OF SAMUEL EXAMINED, 137 

as plainly as words can express, that Samuel must have 
been dead many years, perhaps centuries, when it was 
written : but the commentators have not seen the natural 
force of the words, on account of the erroneous opinion 
that Samuel was the writer, with which they would make 
the narrative harmonize. 

Chap, vi, 18. And the golden mice, according to the number of all 
the cities of the Philistines belonging to the five lords, both of fenced 
cities, and of country villages, even unto the great stone of Abel, where- 
on they set down the ark of the Lord : which stone remainetk unto this 
day in the field of Joshua the Bethshemite. 

Chap, vii, 15. And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life. 

Bp Patrick's interpretation of this stubborn verse may 
be quoted, but to be as speedily rejected ; because it per- 
verts the plain meaning of words, for the purpose of mak- 
ing them support a pre-conceived theory : 

As Samuel was the author of this book he could not speak literally of 
" all the days of his life " : the sense probably is, that he was so diligent 
in the discharge of his office, that he gave himself no rest, but sat to 
judge causes every day. 

It is almost a waste of words to reply to such a manifest 
perversion of the meaning. "All the days of his life " 
means "the whole of his life " not " every day": and the use 
of these words shews that Samuel could not have been the 
author of the book. But the commentator, taking for 
granted that Samuel was the author of the book, has 
twisted the meaning of words to suit this pre-con- 
celved notion. 

In I Sam. ix, 9. 10, we read these words. 

(Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he- 
spake, " Come and let us go to the seer : " for he that is now called a 
prophet was beforetime called a seer.) Then said Saul to Ins servant, 
"Well said; come, let us go." So they went unto the city where the 
man of God was. And as they went up the hill to the city, they found 

18 



138 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [cHAP. 

young maidens going out to draw water, and said to them, " Is the 
seer here ? " 

In explaining this passage, the editors of the Family 
Bible try to make it appear that the words now and before- 
time imply no greater interval of time than that which 
passed in Samuel's ; 'own life-time. They quote as follows, 
from Bishop Patrick, Pyle and Dr Gray : 

The word now refers to the time when this book was written, proba- 
bly the latter part of Samuel's life. The verse explains that, at the 
time when Saul was appointed king, the Hebrew word Koeh, " a seer 
of secret things," was usually applied to inspired persons ; but that after- 
wards the word Nabi or "prophet," (which had been very anciently 
known, as appears from the books of Moses,) came into common use. 
Bp Patrick, Pyle. The word Nabi, " prophet," was in use in the time 
of Moses or Abraham ; see Gen. xx, 7 ; but then it only implied a man 
favoured of God; whereas, in the time of Samuel, it was appropriated 
to one who foresaw future events. 

These remarks contain both what is true and w r hat is 
false. It is evident that the word roeh " seer " is the older 
term of the two, and we find that it is the word which 
Saul and his companions actually used — " Is the seer 
here ? " The word seer, therefore, was used in Samuel's 
life-time, and there is no proof that the word nabi, " pro- 
phet," superseded it during the life of Samuel. Indeed 
there is a verse in the second book of Samuel, which shews 
that the old word seer was still in use after the death of 
Samuel : 

The king [i. e. David] said also unto Zadok the priest, " Art not 
thou a seer ? return into the city in peace, and your two sons with you, 
Ahimaaz thy son, and Jonathan the son of Abiathar." xv, 27. 

The book of Samuel was, consequently, not written by 
Samuel. The words now and beforetime denote too long 
an interval to allow room for such a supposition. But yet 
the word nabi " prophet " — not in use in the time of Samuel 
-■ — actually occurs in the Pentateuch and other books of 



17.] BOOK OF SAMUEL EXAMINED. 139 

the Old Testament, as, for example, in Genesis xx, 7 , 
Ex. vii, 1. xv, 20 ; Num. xi, 29. xii, 6 ; Deut. xiii, 1, 5. xviii, 
15. xxxiv, 10 ; Jud. iv, 4. vi, 8 ; I Sam. iii, 20. ix, 9 ; II Sam. 
vii, 2 ; I Kings xii, 14. In the later of these passages it is 
not to be wondered that the word rendered " prophet " 
should be fouad, because the writer of the first book of 
Samuel tells us that it had come into use in his time, and 
therefore must have been a common word afterwards ; but 
that it should occur in the book of Genesis proves either 
that Genesis was written after the introduction of the word 
into the Hebrew language, or that the writer of the first 
book of Samuel is wrong in describing the word as modern, 
or that the meaning of the word had changed. I believe 
that the word was actually a new word in the Hebrew lan- 
guage introduced after the Babylonish captivity, and con- 
sequently that the first book of Samuel, as well as the 
Pentateuch, were written after that captivity. 

The two next extracts cannot have been written by 
Samuel, on account of the terms of praise in which he is 
spoken of : and, as they occur in the first part of the book, 
we may infer that no portion of the work was written by 
Samuel himself : 

Chap. xii. v. 11. Ariel the Lord sent Jerubbaal, and Bedan 7 and 
Jephthab, and Samuel, and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies 
on every side, and ye dwelled safe. 

Chap, xii, v. 1 8. So Samuel called unto the Lord ; and the Lord 
sent thunder and rain that day ; and all the people greatly feared the 
Lord and Samuel. 

The next extracts would prove, if proof were wanting, 
that Samuel could not have written the whole of this book, 
for his death is recorded in the extracts. 

Chap, xxv, v. I. And Samnel died ; and all the Israelites were gather- 
ed together, and lamented him, and buried him in his house at 
Ramah. 

^ Chap, xxviii, v. 3. Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented 
him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. 



140 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Chap, xxs, v. £5. And it was so from that day forward, that he* 
made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto tiiis day. 

There are also some passages* even in the first book of 
Samuel, in which the distinction between Judah and Israel 
is clearly indicated. The book was therefore certainly 
written after the revolt of Jeroboam and the ten tribes. 
This took place about ninety years after the death of 
Samuel ; the book, therefore, cannot be considered as a 
contemporary record. The passages which allude to the 
division of the kingdom, are these : 

Chap, xviii, v. 16. But all Israel and Judah loved David, because 
he went out and came in before them. 

Chap, xxvii, 6. Then Achish gave him Ziglag that day : wherefore 
Ziglag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah unto this day. 



CHAPTER IS. 

Second book oi? Samuel examined. 

The Second book of Samuel labours under greater 
difficulties, as regards its authorship, than any of the 
preceding writings. Its narrative avowedly and manifestly 
begins long after the death of Samuel, who, consequently, 
had nothing whatever to do with writing it. The com- 
mentators have supposed Gad or Nathan to have been the 



18.] BOOK OF SAMUEL EXAMINED. 141 

author, but they might with more reason have referred it 
to the time of Ezra, Neheniiab, or some later writer. Its 
contents are susceptible of the same examination which 
has been directed' towards the books preceding it in the 
Jewish canon. 

The allusions to the two separate kingdoms of Judah and 
Israel, which were noticed in the last chapter, occur again 
here : 

Chap, ii, 4 — 10. And the men of Juclah came, and there they 
anointed David king over the house of Judah. . . . (v. 10.) Ishbo- 
sheth Saul's son was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel 
and reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David. 

Chap, iv, 3. And the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and were sojourn- 
ers there until this day. 

Chap, v, 5. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six 
months, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all 
Israel and Judah. 

This must have been written after the division of the 
kingdom. 

In verse 7 of the same chapter are the words : 

Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion : the same is the 
city of David. 

The latter part of the verse is introduced to explain, that 
the strong hold of Zion was the same which was called 
afterwards the city of David. 

In the 9th verse, again, of the same chapter, we read : 

So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And 
David built round about from Millo and inward. 

Note by Dr Pococke : 

—from Millo] From the place where Solomon afterwards built 
Millo ; for it appears from I Kings ix, 15, that it was not built till 
Solomon's reign. 

If this be true, the books of Samuel must have been 
written, — at least as late as the reign of king Solomon. So 



142 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

must the book of Judges ; for Millo is mentioned there 
also : 

Judges ix, 6. And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and 
all the house of Millo, and went and made Abimelech king, by the 
plain of the pillar that was in Shechein. 

The house of Millo, or, as it is in the Hebrew, Beth- 
millo, occurs again in II Kings xii, 20 : 

And his servants arose, and made a conspiracy, and slew Joash in 
the house of Millo, which goeth down to Silla. 

II Sam. xvi, 23. And the counsel of Ahithophel, w 7 hie h he counselled 
in those days, was as if a man had enquired at the oracle of God : so 
was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom. 

Chap, xviii, 18. Now Absalom in his life-time had taken and rear- 
ed up for himself a pillar, which is in the king's dale : for he said, u I 
have no son to keep my name in remembrance " : and he called the pillar 
after his own name : and it is called unto this day, Absalom's place. 

The 23rd chapter of II Samuel begins with these words : 

Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, 
and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of 
Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said : 

Then follows the song which David spake on this occas- 
ion ; followed abruptly by the catalogue of David's mighty 
men of war : and in v. 1 of chap, xxiv begins a new sub- 
ject, which shews that David was still engaged in the duties 
of active life : 

And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he 
moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 

These abrupt methods of writing mark, not an original 
author but a compiler, who collects original documents 
together, copies them one after another and makes inser- 
tions, sometimes for the purpose of connecting them into 
one history, and, at other times of explaining those passa- 
ges which his readers might otherwise find it hard to 



19.] BOOKS Or KINGS EXAMINED. 143 

understand. No other mode of interpretation will account 
for the inversions of order, the extraordinary repetitions, 
and unusual method of narration which the books of the 
Old Testament present. 



CHAPTER 19. 

The Two Books op Kings examined. 

As it is generally admitted that the two books of Kings 
were written after the return of the Israelites from Baby- 
lon, it is not absolutely necessary to examine them for 
the purpose of collecting the evidence which they furnish. 
But there are certain passages in both these books which, 
besides proving the assertion that has been made above, 
yield other evidence of a significant character respecting 
the true nature of Jewish History and Prophecy ; and, 
besides, these passages are so remarkably similar to those 
gathered from the preceding books, that they warrant the 
inference of a common origin. 

Such are the following, in which the distinction between 
Judah and Israel is so plainly marked that it was evidently 
employed by the writer as a long established fact : 

I Kings i, 35. (David speah) Then ye shall come up after him, that 



144 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES* [CHAP* 

he may come and sit upon my throne ; for he shall be king in my stead : 
and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and Judah. 

Chap, iv, v. 1. So king Solomon was king over all Israel. 

Chap, iv, £0. Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by 
the sea in multitude. 

Cuap. iv, v. 25. And Judah and Israel dwelt safely &c. 

Chap, iv, v. 21. And Solomon reigned over aJl kingdoms from the 
river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt; 
they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life. 

The river must here mean the Euphrates, not the Jor- 
dan ; for Solomon reigned to a great distance beyond the 
Jordan east-ward. This designation of the Euphrates as 
the river, implies that the writer was well acquainted with 
it ; that is to say, he wrote this account after the nation 
had dwelt at Babylon upon its banks. 

Chap, ix, v. 11.... (Now Hiram the king of Tyre had furnished Solo- 
mon with cedar trees and fir trees, and with gold, according to all his 
desire,) that then king Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of 

Galilee (v. 13) And he [Hiram] said, " What cities 

are these which thou hast given me, my brother ? •' And he called them 
the land of Cabul unto this day. 

Chap, xii, v. 19. So Israel rebelled against the house of David 
unto this day. 

Chap, xiii, v. 2. And he cried against the altar in the word of the 
Lord, and said, " O altar, altar, thus saith the Lord ; Behold, a child 
shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name ; and upon thee 
shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee 
and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee." 

As this prophecy concerning Josiah was recorded after 
the events had happened, the record of it may probably 
have received a species of colouring from the pen of the 
writer, as is likely to occur in such cases. This con- 
sideration is of great importance in our estimate of such 
things : all the original prophecies, known to have been 
written before the fulfilment, are found to be obscure, and 
even at present after so many centuries have passed, it is 
uncertain whether many of them have been fulfilled or not. 



19.] BOOK OF KINGS EXAMINED. 143* 

I Kings xiv, 15. For the Lord shall smite Israel, as a reed is shaken 
in the water, and he shall root up Israel out of this good land, which he 
gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the river, because 
they have made their groves, provoking the Lord to anger. 

II Kings viii, 22. Yet Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah 
unto this day. 

The Family Bible adds this note : 

unto this day] Unto the time when this book was written, which was 
not long after this revolt. 

Yet the editors of the Family admit that the books were 
written probably by Ezra; and by the date in the margin 
attached to the revolt of Edom, B. C. 892, it appears that 
nearly 400 years intervened between the revolt and this 
relation of it. 

II Kings x, 27. And they brake down the image of Baal, and brake 
down the house of Baal, and made it a draught house unto this day. 

— xiii, 23. And the Lord was gracious unto them, and had com- 
possion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant 
with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and would not destroy them, neither cast 
he them from his presence as yet. 

— xiv, 7. He slew of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand, and 
took Selah by war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day. 

— xvii, 29. Howbeit every nation made gods of their own, and put 
them in the houses of the high places, which the Samaritans had made, 
every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt... (v. 34) Unto this day 
they do after the former manners : they fear not tlie Lord, neither do 
they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the 
law and commandment which the Lord commanded the children of Jacob, 
whom he named Israel. 

— xxv, 27. And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year 
of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on 
the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of 
Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Je- 
hoiachin king of Judah out of prison. 

The event here recorded happened about the year B. C. 
562, or 26 years before the date usually assigned for the 
return of the Jews from the Captivity of Babylon. The 



144* THE HEBREW SCRIPTUREa. [ CHAP - 

Books of Kings, in which this date occurs, could not have 
been written before, but after the events which are recor- 
ded in them. 



CHAPTER 20. 

Errors, discrepancies, anachronisms &c. in the Historical 
books generally, shewing that they are not contemporary 

RECORDS. 

In the preceding chapters I have attempted to shew 
from internal evidence, discoverable in the several books 
of the Old Testament, that they are not the productions 
of Moses, Joshua and Samuel, to whom they are com- 
monly attributed, but are rather to be taken collectively 
as a compilation from original records, made at a time 
when the Israelitish people began to shew a disposition, 
common to all nations, to scrutinize the history of their 
remote ancestors. That this view of the matter is well 
founded seems fairly to result from the examination to 



20.] DISCREPANCIES, &C. 145 

which the books of the Old Testament have been severally 
submitted. The same inference will follow from other 
instances of internal evidence gathered from the same 
books taken collectively, differing somewhat in character 
from those already brought forward, but equally valuable 
for the purpose of establishing my present argument 

Under this head will fall all those historical narratives, 
involving errors, discrepancies, anachronisms, and other 
inconsistencies, which Moses, Joshua and Samuel, as far as 
possibility is concerned, may undoubtedly have written, 
but which it is extremely improbable that teachers and 
prophets as they were, should have written. The collective 
weight of these passages will be almost as great as is 
furnished by those which have been produced in the 
last six chapters, and which certainly could not have been 
written by the authors to whom they are ascribed. 

1 . Two versions of the Ten Commandments. 

A formidable objection to the originality of the Hebrew 
Bible arises from the discrepancies between one part of 
it and another, not of a nature to invalidate its historical 
truth, but shewing, merely, that the writer of one part of 
it had not seen other parts in which the same events had 
been differently described* 

Such a discrepancy is found between the Ten Com- 
mandments, as they are noticed in the 20th chapter of 
Exodus, and again in the 5th chapter of Deuteronomy. 

The two copies of the commandments are here subjoined 
in parallel columns : 

Exodus xx, 1—1 7> Deuteronomy v, 7— 2L. 

1. Thou shall have no other gods before 1. Thou shalt have none other gods before 

me. me. 

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven 2. Thou shalt not make thee any graves 
image, or any likeness of afiy tiling that is in Image, or any likeness of any thing that is in 

• heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, 

or that is in the water Under the earth. oi that is in the waters beneath the earth. 

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, Thou shalt not bow down thyself! to thertl. 

nor serve them : for I the Lord thy God am a nor serve them i for I the Lord thy God am s 

19 



146 



THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. 



(chap. 



jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the 
fathers upon the children unto the third and 
fourth generation of them that hate me ; 

And shewing mercy unto thousands of them 
that love me, and keep my commandments. 



jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the 
fathers upon the children unto the third and 
fourth generation of them that hate me : 

And shewing mercy unto thousands of them 
that love me, and keep my commandments. 



3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord 
thy God in vain ; for the Lord will not hold him 
guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 

4. Remember the sahhath day, to keep it 

holy. 
Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy 

work : 

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the 

Lord thy God : in it thou shalt not do any 

■work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, 

thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy 

cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy 
gates. 



For in six days the Lord made heaven and 
earth, the sea and all that in them is, and 
rested the seventh day: 

wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath 
day and hallowed it. 



3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord 
thy God in vain ; for the Lord will not hold him 
guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 

4. Remember the sabbath day to sanctify it* 

Six days thou shalt labour and do all thy 

work : 

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the 

Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any 

work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor 

thy manservant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine 

ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy 
cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy 

gates : 
that thy man-servant and thy maid-servants 
may rest as well as thou. 
And remember that thou wast a servant in 
the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God 
brought thee out thence through a mighty 
hand, and by a stretched out arm : 

Therefore the Lord thy God commanded 
thee to keep the sabbath day. 



5. Honour thy father and thy mother : 

that thy days may be long 

upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth 
thee : 



5. Honour thy father and thy mother: 

as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: 

that thy days may be prolonged, 

and that it may go well with thee 

in the land which the Lord thy God giveth 

thee. 



6. Thou shalt not kill. 
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 
8. Thou shalt not steal. 



6. Thou shalt not kill. 

7. Neither shalt thou commit adultery. 

8. Neither shalt thou 6teal. 



9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against 
thy neighbour. 



9. Neither shalt thou bear false witness against 
thy neighbour. 



10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's 

house, 

thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's 

wife, nor 

his manservant, nor his maidservant 

nor his ox nor his ass, nor any thing that is 

thy neighbour's. 



10. Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's 

wife, 

neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's 

house his field or 

his manservant, or his maidservant, 

hie ox, or his ass, or any thing that is 

thy neighbour's. 



20.] DISCREPANCIES, &C. 147 

These two copies of the same document must have been 
handed down in two different and separate works, and the 
compiler, whoever he was, that drew up the existing col- 
lection which forms the canon of Old Testament, inserted 
both of the copies, because they appear to be of equal 
authority, without being deterred by the somewhat incon- 
sistent reasons which the two copies give for the observance 
of the Fourth Commandment. 

2. Inconsistencies concerning Abraham and Sarah. 

Two extraordinary inconsistencies are found in the history 
of Abraham and Sarah, which, as far as I can discover, 
have not been noticed by any of the commentators. Abra- 
ham is said to have been 100 years old, and Sarah 90, at 
the birth of Isaac, as appears by Genesis, xvii, 17 : 

Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in Ids heart, 
" Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old, and shall 
Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? 

At the distance of three chapters we find that Sarah 
passes for Abraham's sister, and is carried away to the court 
of Abimelech, no doubt on account of her beauty. 

Gen. xx, 2. And Abraham said of Sarah his wife " She is my sister : " 
and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah. 

This surely could not have happened after she was 
ninety years old. The events have probably been misplaced 
by a compiler ; as has also been the case with the second 
discrepancy which occurs in the same part of the history. 
Sarah was ninety years old, as just stated, when Isaac was 
born — in fact she was already an old woman : and this is 
repeated in Genesis, xxi, 2 : 

Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set 
time of which God had spoken to him. 

She lived thirty-seven years longer : 



148 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Gen. xxiii, 1 — 2. And Sarah was an hundred and seven and twenty 
years old: these were the years of the life of Sarah. And Sarah died in 
Kirjath-arba : the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan : and Abraham 
came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her. 

Abraham was therefore 137 years old when Sarah died : 
yet he is said to have married again, and to have begotten 
six children. 

Gen. xxv, 1—2. Then again Abraham toot a wife, and her name 
was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, 
and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. 

This account is repugnant to what went before. If 
Abraham, at the age of 100 years, laughed at the idea of 
his having a son, how does it happen that, when he was 
137 years old, he marries again, and begets six children? 
We may easily believe that he was little likely, from 
physical causes, to have a son and heir at the age of one 
hundred years, and this improbability was likely to increase 
every succeeding year. There is no reason for believing 
that the children which were born to Abraham from Ketu- 
rah, were children of promise, like Isaac ; and the only 
supposition by which the inconsistency can be explained, 
is that Abraham had taken Keturah to wife at an earlier 
period of his life : for polygamy was common in those 
days, and no less likely to have been practised by Abraham 
than it notoriously was by Abraham's grandson, Jacob, in 
the case of Leah, Rachel, and their two handmaids his con- 
cubines. This explanation, however, compels us to believe, 
not that Moses wrote the narrative, but a compiler in a 
later age, who, as is often done, ranges in successive dates 
events which really were contemporaneous, 

3. Different accounts of the length of time which the 
Israelites sojourned in Egypt. 

Among the many chronological difficulties which meet 
the reader of the Old Testament, may be noticed the un- 



20.] DISCREPANCIES. &C. 149 

certainty about the length of time which the Israelites 
spent in Egypt. The first impression which the Bible 
narrative tends to convey is that 400 years passed between 
the settling of Jacob's family in Egypt and the Exode 
under Moses. This was the period of time foretold to 
Abraham in Genesis. 

But there is a variation in this number in other passages 
where the subject is referred to : for in Exodus xii, 40-41, 
the number is stated, not at 400, but at 430 years. The 
same variation is observable in the two places of the New 
Testament, where the subject is mentioned. In Acts, vii, 
6, we read four hundred, but in Galatians, hi, 17, four 
hundred and thirty years. The difference between these 
numbers is not important, if the book in which it occurs is 
to be judged by the same standard as other works of 
history ; but if, on the other hand, it is to be considered as 
possessing an original authority which commands our 
belief without enquiry, and forbids us to test its accuracy, 
the variation of thirty years becomes a serious discrepancy, 
militating greatly against its pretension to infallibility. 

It remains to adduce the passages where the subject is 
mentioned both in the Old and New Testaments, and to 
endeavour to solve the difficulty which they present. 

Exodus xii, 40-41. Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, 
who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. 

And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, 
even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord 
went out from the land of Egypt, 

Note in the Family Bible : 

The sojourning of the children of Egypt,~\ This includes their fathers 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ; and their sojourning in the land of Canaan 
as well as in Egypt. From the time of Abraham's coming from Charran 
into the land of Canaan, when this sojourning began, till the going of 
his descendants out of Egypt, was just 430 years. From his -arrival in 
Canaan to the birth of Isaac was 25 years; Isaac was 6i) years old when 



150 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

he begat Jacob ; and Jacob was 130 years old when he went down into 
Egypt, making together 215 years : and from his family's coming into 
Egypt till their departure was just 215 more. 

This note alters the language of the text, but does not 
explain it. How can the "sojourning of the children of 
Israel who dwelt in Egypt " be supposed to begin 215 years 
before any of the children of Israel ever were in Egypt ? 
Abraham certainly visited Egypt, 215 years before, but he 
did not sojourn there, and he was not one of the 6 children 
of Israel' ; for Israel was the name of his grandson Jacob* 
Besides which it is plainly written that the hosts of the 
Lord, i. e. the children of Israel, came out of Egypt, " on 
the self-same day," i. e. as they had come in, 430 years 
before. This cannot apply to Abraham, whose visit to 
Egypt had nothing to do with the slavery of his posterity 
in that country so many years afterwards. 

Neither is it certain that 215 is the correct number of 
years between the visit of Abraham and the journey of 
Jacob, when he went to settle with his family in Egypt. 
We find in Genesis xii, 4, that 

Abram was seventy five years old when he departed out of Haran : 

but we are not told that he went directly into Egypt : he 
may have resided some years in Canaan before he went 
down into Egypt, and so the interval would have been less 
than 215 years by the exact number of years that he 
remained first in Canaan. 

It is also without good grounds that the commentators 
have decided that 215 years passed between the settling of 
Jacob's family in Egypt and the time of the Exodus. The 
Bible furnishes but very slender data for ascertaining the 
exact length of this interval. In Exodus vi, 16 — 20, we 
learn that Levi lived 137 years, his son Kohath 133, whose 
son Amram lived 134 years, whose son Moses was 80 years 
old, when he led the Israelites out of Egypt. But these 



discrepancies &c. 151 

dates do not supply a total of 215 years; though they 
seem, by exhibiting four generations, to bear some refer- 
ence to Genesis xv, 13, where the promise, made originally 
to Abraham, is found : 

Gen. xv, 13. And lie [God] said unto Abram, " Know of a surety that 
thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve 
them ; and they shall afflict them four hundred years : And also that 
nation, whom they shall serve, will 1 judge : and afterward shall they 
come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in 
peace ; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth 
generation they shall come hitherto again : for the iniquity of the 
Amorites is not yet full. 

Here we have a notice of 400 years, extending, it would 
seem, through four generations ; which must clearly be 
counted from Jacob and not from Abraham, for if we 
reckon from Abraham, we make six generations, Isaac, 
Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses. Thus, we are invol- 
ved in a double difficulty : if the sojourning lasted 430 years, 
it runs through six generations ; but if it runs through only 
four generations, it may have lasted no more than 215 years. 
Bishops Patrick and Kidder have annotated on the last 
passage, as if it were clear and intelligible like any part of 
history ancient or modern, and presented no difficulty 
whatever to the critical enquirer. 

And he said unto Abram, fee.] Three things were to befall Abrarn's 
seed : 1st That they "should be a stranger in a land not theirs/' and 
they sojourned partly in Canaan, partly in Egypt : 2dly, That they 
should " serve ; " and they did serve the Egytians : 3dly, They should 
be " afflicted;" and so the Israelites were in a great degree, a long time 
before they came out of Egypt. The time from the birth of Isaac to the 
deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt was 400 years. 

But this is an evasion, not an explanation of the text — - 
for the " affliction," the " servitude," did not begin in 
Canaan, but in Egypt, and it was to last, either 400 or 
430 years, for this point now cannot be cleared up, and the 



152 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES* [CHAP. 

same variation is found in the New Testament also, where 
a reference is made to the sojourning in Egypt. 

Acts vii, 6. \The high-priest speaks] and God spake on this wise, 
That his [Abraham's] seed should sojourn in a strange land ; and that 
they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil 400 years. 

But this evilentreating according to the commentators 
lasted much less than even 215 years, for Jacob was 
treated well by the Egyptians whilst he was in Egypt, and 
so were his family for many years, until the new king arose 
" who knew not Joseph." 

Galatians iii, 17. And this I say, that the covenant, that was con- 
firmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and 
thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of 
none effect. 

From all these texts taken together I cannot see how we 
can avoid the inference that 400 or 430 years is the space 
of time that passed whilst the Israelites were in Egypt and 
not whilst they were partly in Egypt. Even the last pas- 
sage from St Paul's epistle leads to the same inference, 
though some have brought it to prove that the 430 years 
must be reckoned from Abraham. But surely the promise 
was made to Isaac and to Jacob also, and not to Abraham 
only. The difficulty which these inconsistencies present 
can only be solved by the supposition that the book was 
written long after the events which it records, and at a 
time when it was impossible to arrive with certainty at the 
exact chronology of an age so long gone by. 

4. Discrepancies in the history of David and Saul 

Another discrepancy is observable between the two ac- 
counts of David's introduction to Saul, as related, the one 
in I Sam. xvi, 14 — 21, the other in I Sam. xvii, 38—00. 

I Samuel xvi, 14 — 21. But the spirit of the Lord departed from 
Saul and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. And Saul's servants 
said unto him, " Behold now, an evil spirit from the Lord troubleth thee. 



20.] DISCREPANCIES, &C. 153 

Let oar lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to 
seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp : and^it shall come 
to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that be shall play 
with his hand, and thou shalt be well." 

And Saul said unto his servants, "Provide me now a man that 
can play well, and bring him to me." 

Then answered one of the servants, and said, " Behold, I have seen 
a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a 
mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a 
comely person, and the Lord is with him." 

Wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said " Send me 
David thy son, which is with the sheep." 

And Jesse took an ass laden with bread, and a bottle of wine, and a 
kid, and sent them by David his son unto Saul. 

And David came to Saul, and stood before him : and he loved him 
greatly ; and lie became his armour-bearer. 

It is difficult to reconcile this with the account given in 
the 17th chapter of the same book, where are related the 
circumstances which preceded and followed the battle be- 
tween David and Goliath. The reader will remember 
that the two armies were drawn up in array, when Goliath 
of Gath challenges the Israelites to single combat. At this 
moment, the stripling David comes to see his brothers, 
and asks what shall be given to the man who should kill 
the Philistine. Tiien follows this narrative : 

I Samuel xvii, 28. And Eiiab his eldest brother heard when he 
spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and 
he said, " Why earnest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou 
left those few sheep in the wilderness ? I know thy pride, and the 
naughtiness of thine heart ; for thou art come down that thou mightest 
see the battle." And David said, " What have I now done ? Is there 
not a cause ? " And he turned from him toward another, and spake 
after the same manner : and the people answered him again after 
the former manner. And when the words were heard which David 
spake, they rehearsed them before Saul : and he sent for him. And 
David said to Saul "Let no man's heart fail because of him; thy 
servant will go and fight with this Philistine. &c." 

20 



154 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP* 

The account of the battle in which David slays the 
Philistine, needs not to be extracted ; at verse 55 we read : 

And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said 
unto Abner, the captain of the host, " Abner, whose son is this youth ? " 
And Abner said, " As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell/' And 
the king said, " Enquire thou whose son the stripling is." And as 
David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, 
and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand, 
And Saul said to hira, " Whose son art thou, thou young man ? " And 
David answered, "I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite." 

These two accounts do not agree together. If David, 
according to the first of them, was already " a mighty 
valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters," 
before he played on the harp to Saul, how could he be 
afterwards described as a " stripling " and as unused to 
armour, when he fought with the Philistine ? Again : 
If David had been the armour-bearer of Saul who " loved 
him greatly," how should Saul afterwards have been 
ignorant of his very name ? The explanation of the dis- 
crepancy may be this. The two accounts were originally 
independent of one another, and were afterwards united 
by some compiler who did not perceive that they were 
irreconcilable in the points above mentioned, though in 
their main features, equally founded upon fact. 

It is not, however, impossible that the compiler has 
added details by way of ornament to his narrative : for he 
gives us a dialogue as having passed between the champions : 
but does not tell us in what language they spoke. The 
Philistines and Israelites certainly did not at this time speak 
the same language : or we should not find them speaking 
a different language four or five centuries afterwards, as 
we read in Nehemiah, xiii, 23 : 

In those days also saw I [i. e. Nehemiah] Jews that had married 
wives of Ashdt.d, of Amnion, and of Moab. And their children spake 
half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, 
but according to the language of each people. 



20.] DISCREPANCIES, &C. 155 

Ashdod was one of the five cities of the Philistines, and 
its inhabitants, having always maintained their indepen- 
dence, retained also their native language, still distinct 
from that of the Israelites as late as the time of Nehemiah. 

The dialogue between David and Goliath is similar to 
those which we find in Homer as passing between the 
various champions of Greece and Troy : but neither can these 
be received as other than the embellishments of the poet : 
for Hector and Achilles, Ajax and iEneas, spoke different 
languages, and could not have understood a word of the 
taunts and threats which they so liberally discharged the 
one against the other. 

5. Inaccuracy concerning Jacob's children. 

In Genesis xxxv, 26, we read — after a list of Jacob's 
children — 

These are the sons of Jacob, which were born to *hhn in Padan- 
Aram. 

But it is well known that Benjamin was born, some 
years after Jacob returned to Canaan. The text therefore 
is inaccurate, and creates a serious difficulty, if we suppose 
that Moses, writing in the presence of God, could have 
been liable to such an error. If, again, " some careless or 
injudicious transcriber," as Dr Shuckford supposes, "finding 
the words in Padan-Aram in Gen. xlvi, 15, might add them 
here also &c. &c." our want of confidence is merely trans- 
ferred from Moses to the book itself ; it is impossible to 
fix limits to this work of interpolation, and the only safe 
ground for the enquirer is that furnished by the supposition 
that the compiler put together his account long after the 
events had happened, and when no more certain information 
could be procured. 

An error is found also in the other catalogue of Jacob's 
children, who accompanied him into Egypt. The names 



156 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

occupy from verse 8 to 25 of Genesis xlvi. In verse 26 
it is said ; 

All the [souls that CRtne with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of 
his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were three score 
and six. 

This total is erroneous, for the names, added properly, 
amount to sixty seven ; and a still greater difference is 
found between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint in 
the 27th verse : the former makes " all the souls of the 
house of Jacob " to be " three score and ten : " whereas the 
latter states them to have been seventy five. 

We might set aside the authority of the Septuagint as 
inferior to that of the Hebrew in such a matter, were it 
not that in St Stephen's speech, in the Acts of the Apostles, 
vii, 14, the number 75 is repeated, and an awkward dilemma 
is created, from which it is impossible to extricate ourselves, 
if these conflicting accounts, both written by inspiration, 
are to be considered as having come down to us in their 
original state. This may with justice be called in question ; 
for Dean Shuckford, who supposes that the transcribers 
have added something in chapter xxxv, accuses them of 
having omitted something in chapter xlvi, of having added 
a verse in xlvi, 27, of the Septuagint, which is more full 
than the Hebrew, and lastly of having altered 70 into 75 
in chapter vii of the Acts. It is difficult to imagine how a 
book, with which such liberties have been taken, can 
properly be regarded as an immaculate record. But the 
same mode of interpretation is entirely inapplicable to 
explain the remarkable fact that among those who ac- 
companied Jacob into Egypt, are enumerated, in Gen. xlvi, 
21, ten sons of Benjamin, and, in v. 12, two grandsons of 
Judah, Hezron and Hamul. Jacob surely went into Egypt 
soon after the famine began, and Benjamin was then a lad, 
if we may trust the chronologers, under twenty years of 
age. The grandsons of Judah, through his son Pharez, 



20.] DISCREPANCIES. &C. 157 

could not have been born until many years later; for 
Pharez their father was only two or three years old, when 
the whole family first entered the land of their servitude. 

6. Excessive accounts of the population of the Holy Land. 

In II Samuel chap, xxiv, verse 9, we meet with the as- 
tonishing assertion that the number of soldiers in David's 
army was one million three hundred thousand men ; 

And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the 
king : and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that 
drew the sword ; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand 
men. 

If these numbers are correct, we must suppose that all 
the men in Israel and Judah capable of bearing arms, 
whether soldiers by profession or not, [were included in 
the calculation. Now, computing those capable of bear- 
ing arms as one out of three — a very large proportion — 
it results that the whole number of males in Israel and 
Judah was nearly 4 millions. There would be in the next 
place, the same number of females of all ages, or rather 
the number of females would be greater, as is found to be 
the case in all countries. We may then conclude that the 
population of David's dominions amounted to at least 8 
millions, a very large number indeed for so small a country 
as Judasa, which is in size hardly greater than Holland or 
Belgium, and yet these two kingdoms, though thickly peo- 
pled, contain, together, little more than half of the above men- 
tioned estimate taken from the census of King David's 
dominions. Let us now compare with this the account 
given in I Chron. xxi, 5 : 

And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. 
And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thou- 
sand men that drew sword : and Judah was four hundred three score and 
ten thousand men that drew sword. 

These numbers make a total of one million five hundred 



158 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES [CHAP. 

and seventy thousand men, capable of bearing arms, and 
after the same rate, the population of the Holy Land, in 
the reign of David, amounted to nine millions four hun- 
dred and twenty thousand persons, which is even greater 
than the total, afforded by the account given in the book 
of Samuel. 

7. Error in the number of Solomon's officers. 
In I Kings ix, 23, we read : 

These were the chief of the officers that were over Solomon's work* 
five hundred and fifty, which bare rule over the people that wrought in 
the work. 

The number of officers is very different in II Chron- 
\lii, 10 ; 

And these were the cHef of king Solomon's officers, even two hun- 
dred and fifty, that bare ri^e over the people. 

The explanation which Bishop Patrick gives of this dis- 
crepancy, in a note on I Kings ix, 23, is simply a conjec- 
ture, founded on no fact or reason whatever : 

At 2 Chron. viii, 10 the number is stated at 250. The most prob- 
able solution is that there were 250 set over those who wrought in 
the temple ; and the rest had the superintendence of pub^c works in 
other places. 

Numbers, when expressed by short ideagraphic signs, such 
as Arabian or Roman numerals, are always liable to cor- 
ruption : but the care taken by the Jews to preserve their 
scriptures from error, renders it unlikely that these scrip- 
tures should have been corrupted like other books. Yet 
we find so many disagreements in numbers between Kings 
and Chronicles, that it is necessary to assign some reason 
for the fact. One general explanation may be given of all 
these discrepancies. The separate documents differed 
originally because they proceeded from different authors 
who wrote independently, one of the other, and like all 



20.] DISCREPANCIES, &C. 159 

historians, differed from each other in the minor details of 
their histories. The compilers who collected those records 
retained the narratives in their original form, and with all 
these inaccnracies uncorrected. 

8. Error in the number of talents brought from Ophir. 

In I Kings ix, 28, it is said that the ships built by King 
Solomon 

came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and 
twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon. 

Bishop Patrick writes the following note on this verse : 

It is said at II Chron. viii, 18, that they brought 450 talents : 
a difference which is of little importance, whether we attribute it to 
a variation in the value of the talent, or in the quantity of the metal, 
the one referring to the quantity of pure gold, the other of gold with 
alloy; or whether we suppose 450 talents to be the gross produce of the 
voyage, 420 the produce with the deduction of expenses. 

Such annotations as these are unworthy the importance of 
the subject, and the positive nature of the statements. The 
difference of thirty talents is decided : it arose, no doubt, 
from an inaccuracy in the ancient records, and this inac- 
curacy has been perpetuated by the compiler, who valued 
and preserved the genuiness of his materials, even though 
they were slightly discrepant the one with the other. 

9. Concerning the situation of Tarshish. 

The passages of the Old Testament, in which Tarshish 
is named, involve a doubt whether that city was situated 
on the Red Sea or the Mediterranean : 

I Kings x, 22. For the king [Solomon] had at sea a navy at Thars- 
hish with the navy of Hiram : once in three years came the navy of 
Tharshish, bringing gold and silver, ivory, apes and peacocks. 

The Tyrians certainly had their navy in the Mediterran- 
ean, and not on the Red Sea, from which they were separa- 
ted by the Israelites, the Philistines, and other tribes. 

I Kings xxii, 48. Jehoshaphafc made ships of Tharshish to go to 



160 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Ophir for gold : but they went not ; for the ships were broken at Ezion 
geber. 

Now Ezion-geber was a port on the Red Sea, and, if we 
might judge from this verse alone, the city of Tharshish 
was situated there also. This is confirmed by the parallel 
passage in II Chronicles, xx, 36 — 37 : 

And lie \Jehosliapliat\ joined himself with him \Aliazlafi\ to make 
ships to go to Tarshish ; and they made the ships at Ezion-gaber. 
Then Eliezer the son of Dodavah of Mareshah prophesied against Jehos- 
haphat, saying, " Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the 
Lord hath broken thy works." xVnd the ships were broken, that they 
were not able to go to Tarshish. 

10. The Law of Moses not observed by the Israelites, 

It is difficult to imagine that the Law of Moses, as we 
now have it, could have been in public and active operation 
during the times of the Hebrew commonwealth and mon- 
archy ; for in the history of the kings we find the most 
flagrant breaches of that law without any marks of censure 
from the writer, who, as far as we learn by his narrative, 
appears to have known little more than the name of Moses 
or of his Laws. 

Thus, in Deuteronomy xvii, 14 — 28, a passage which, 
according to the theory now proposed, was written after 
the case, which is there put, had been realized, w r e find the 
following : 

When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth 
thee and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and r shalt say, I will 
set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; thou shalt 
in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall 
choose : one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee : 
thou mayst not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. 

But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to 
return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses : forasmuch 
as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that 
way. 

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself that his heart turn not 



20.] DISCREPANCIES, &C. 161 

away : neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that 
he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is be- 
fore the priests the Levites : and it shall be with him, and he shall read 
therein all the days of his life : that he may learn to fear the Lord his 
God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them : 
that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not 
aside from the commandment, to the right hand or to the left : to the 
end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, 
in the midst of Israel. 

Such were the commands of Moses on three specific 
points : 1. Horses, 2. Wives, and 3. Copying out the Law. 
The following texts shew how Solomon obeyed these 
commands : 

1 Kings iv, 26, And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for 
his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. 

xi, 3, And he \_Solomon\ had seven hundred wives, princesses, 

and three hundred concubines : and his wives turned away his heart. 

The writer of this history censures, it is true, the multi- 
plication of wives, but he does not point out the flagrant 
breach of the Law which Solomon committed ; and as re- 
gards the copying of the Law, he observes a deep and total 
silence upon the subject. 

11. Inconsistency between Samuel 's picture of a king and 
that ascribed to Moses in Deut. xviL 

The description of a king, just cited from Deuteronomy 

xvji, 16 — 20, presents nothing offensive to the feelings, or 

injurious to the happiness of the people : nor does it seem 

to imply that the Almighty would disapprove of the 

Israelites choosing for themselves a king when they 

should be settled in the land of promise. On the contrary 

it conveys an idea that the request would be a natural one, 

and it explains the mode in which the petition should be 

complied with. Is it then likely that Samuel had read this 

description when he cautioned the people against choosing 

21 



162 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

a king, by giving the following picture of his tyranny and 
his rapacity ? 

I Sam. viii, 11 — 1 8. This will be the manner of the king that shall reign 
over you : he will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his 
chariots, and to be his horsemen ; and some shall run before his chariots. 

And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over 
fifties, and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to 
make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will 
take your daughters to be confection aries, and to be cooks, and to be 
bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive- 
yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will 
take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, 
and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maid- 
servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to 
his work. 

He will take the tenth of your sheep ; and ye shall be his servants. 

And ye shall cry out in thai day because of your king which ye shall 
have chosen you ; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. 

These words of Samuel will seem highly reasonable, to 
those who know the nature of oriental despotism, if we only 
suppose that Samuel had never read the 17th chapter of 
Deuteronomy, which deals so much more leniently with 
the same contingency. 

It is something also to our present point that neither 
does Samuel cause Saul to copy out the book of the Law, 
as before alluded to, and this seems to prove that there was 
no book of the Law, besides the two tables of stone, then 
in existence. 

There are many other inaccuracies and contradictions in 
the Old Testament, which prove that the books are not 
contemporary with the events which they describe. Those 
which have been enumerated may suffice ; the reader who 
wishes to examine the others for himself will have no dif- 
ficulty in finding them out, particularly the following : 

In I Chron. iii, 16, Zedekiah, who was Mattaniah, is 



20.] DISCREPANCIES, &C. 163 

called the son of Jehoiachin, but in II Kings xxiv, 17, he 
is stated to have been his uncle. 

In I Kings xxiv, 8, Jehoiachin is said to have been 18 
years old when he began to reign, but in II Chron. xxxvi, 
9, his age is stated to have been 8 only. 

In Ezra ii, 64, is a wrong total, being considerably more 
than the several items before enumerated amount to. 

The chronology of sovereigns given in the books of Kings 
will also be found in many instances so contradictory to 
that given in Chronicles, that it is impossible to harmonize 
them, and a forcible impression is left upon the mind that 
both may be wrong, because neither is contemporary. 



CHAPTER 21. 

References to facts of which no records survive. 

It is worthy of observation that in some of the later 
books of the Old and New Testaments we find allusion 
made to events said to have happened in former times, of 
which no trace can be found in the earlier books, where 
we should expect them to be mentioned. A few examples 
of this peculiarity will make the subject sufficiently 
intelligible. 

1. 

Gen. xii, 1. Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out 
of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto 
a land that I will shew thee &c....So Abrara departed, as the Lord had 
spoken unto him ; and Lot went with him : and Abram was seventy 
and five years old when he departed out of Haran. 



164 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. ^CHAP. 

Bishop Patrick remarks on the v> ords Now the Lord had 
said unto Abram, that this happened " before he came to 
Haran, and while he lived in Ur of the Chaldees." But this 
could not have been so ; for in chapter xi, 31, we read : 

And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son's 
son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's Avife, and they 
wentfforth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of 
Canaan ; and they came to Haran, and dwelt there. 

Thus it appears that it was Abraham's father Terah, and 
not Abraham, who led the family out from Ur of the 
Chaldees ; and that too, with the intention of entering the 
land of Canaan. Abraham only continued the migration 
which his father had begun. The account of this trans- 
action is noticed in the book of Judith, in terms w T hich 
seem to shew that there were once more full accounts 
which are now lost. 

Judith v, 6 — 8. This people are descended of the Chaldseans: and 
they sojourned heretofore in Mesopotamia, because they would not 
follow the gods of their fathers, which were in the land of Chaldsea. 
For they left the way of their ancestors, and worshipped the God of 
heaven, the God whom they knew: so they cast them out from the face 
of their gods, and they fled into Mesopotamia, and sojourned there 
many days. 

2. 

In I Samuel, xii, 11, we read : 

And the Lord sent Jerubbael, and JBedan, and Jephthah, and Samuel, 
and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies on every side, and 
ye dwelled safe. 

" It is remarkable," says Bishop Patrick, 

that there is no such name as Bedan mentioned in the book of 
Judges* 

Dr Hales, with a singular boldness of criticism, observes 
on the same passage : 
Perhaps Barak may be meant. 



21.] LOST BOOKS. 165 

This supposition might pass, if it were certain that the 
book of Judges contained a full history of all that period 
of the Jewish national existence, but, as it certainly is a 
very brief history, and occasionally changes with great 
abruptness from one subject to another, it is most probable 
that other writings once existed, which perished before the 
present book of Judges was compiled. 

3. 

A similar mode of interpretation may be applied to a 
passage of Nehemiah ix, 16, as compared with Numbers 
xiv, 4. 

Nehemiah ix, 16. But they and our fathers dealt proudly, and 
hardened their necks, and hearkened not to thy commandments. And 
refused to obey, neither were mindful of thy wonders that thou didst 
among them ; but hardened their necks, and in their rebellion appointed 
a captain to return to their bondage &c. 

In Numbers xiv, 4, we are told : 

And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let us 
return into Egypt. 

But it is not stated that the people actually chose a 
captain to lead them back into Egypt. The alternative is 
evidently this : Nehemiah either quotes erroneously from 
the book of Numbers, or he had a more full account of 
the matter to which he referred, than has been handed 
down to us. 

4. 

Again ; in St Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, ix, 19, we 
read thus : 

For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according 
to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and 
scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people. 

The writer of this epistle must also have had more 
sources of information than we now possess: for the 
account which he gives in the verse before us does not 



±OtJ THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

exactly tally with any of the various verses in the Levi- 
tical Law, where the subject is related. Nothing is said 
of the ' book ' being sprinkled with the blood, even if the 
other parts of the description are allowed to bear a 
sufficient resemblance. 

5. 
Another remarkable instance, bearing upon my present 
argument, is the account which St Jude gives of a contest 
between Michael and the Devil : 

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the Devil he 
disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a 
railing accusation, but said, " The Lord rebuke thee ! " 

It is not known to what St Jude alludes in this verse : 
nothing is said, in the Old Testament, of any contest 
between the Devil and the archangel Michael, and the 
remark, which is quoted from Dr Hales in the Family 
Bible, on Deuteronomy xxxiv, 10, rather embarrasses than 
clears up the subject : 

From an obscure passage in the New Testament, in which " Michael 
the archangel is said to have contended with the devil, about the body 
of Moses/' Jude 9, we may collect, that he was buried by the ministry 
of angels, near the scene of the idolatry of the Israelites ; but that the 
spot was purposely concealed, lest his tomb might also be converted 
into an object of idolatrous worship among the Israelites, like the 
brazen serpent. 

It is dangerous to hazard such a conjecture, because it 
leads to the inference that a man admitted to such intimate 
converse with God, should, after death, run the risk of 
being carried away by the Devil, and only rescued by the 
interposition of an archangel. It is better to leave the 
passage of St Jude in its original obscurity, than attempt 
to solve it by compromising the power and goodness of the 
Almighty. St Jude probably had other writings to refer 
to, which recorded the contest between the powers of good 
and evil, but are now lost. 



21.] LOST BOOKS. 167 

6. 
In St Paul's Second epistle to Timothy, ch. hi, v. 8, are 
found the names of two of the magicians who competed 
with Moses in magical arts, in the presence of Pharaoh, 
king of Egypt. 

Now, as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also 
resist the truth : men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 

Note : 

Jannes and Jambres] These names are not to be met with in the 
Old Testament, but are here taken out of other records of the Jews, as 
divers other things mentioned in the New Testament : see Acts vii, 22, 
23, 25 : they are questionless the names of Pharaoh's chief magicians, 
spoken of in Exod. vii. Dr Hammond. It is remarkable that the former 
of these is mentioned together with Moses, by Pliny; and both of them 
by Numenius the philosopher, quoted in Eusebius, as celebrated 
magicians. Dr Doddridge. 

It is presumed that the names ' Jannes ' and ' Jambres,' 
not found in the books of Moses, became known to St 
Paul through the medium of other writings in which many 
particulars of Jewish history were recorded, but now no 
longer in existence. 

.7. 
Several circumstances of the life and acts of Moses are 
known to us only because they are noticed in the New 
Testament, no mention being made of them in the old 
Jewish Scriptures. For instance, in Acts vii, vv. 22, 
&c. referred to above by Dr Hammond, we are told that 

Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was 
mighty in words and in deeds. xVnd, when he was full forty years old, 
it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel &c. 

But in the book of Exodus the account of these things 
is much shorter, and nothing is said of the age of Moses, at 
the time referred to. 



168 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Neither is there any authority in the Pentateuch for the 
remark, which occurs in Hebrews xi, 24. 

By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the 
son of Pharaoh's daughter. 

These circumstances make it probable that there were 
other original records in the time of St Paul, which have 
since perished. 

This conclusion is supported by the admitted fact that 
many books, which have perished, are quoted in the Old 
Testament itself. Such are the books of Jasher, Enoch, 
the Wars of the Lord and many others. See page 25. 

A perplexing train of argument opens to us from a con- 
sideration of these facts. If the books, which have perished, 
were of value, why have they perished ? if they were of 
no value, why have valuable writers like St Paul, quoted 
them ? It is supposed that they were of inferior authority, 
but this point has not been proved. If the existing books 
are genuine relics of a high antiquity, yet some of the lost 
books were more ancient still. The same Providence 
which has preserved the ones, has suffered the others to 
sink, even though those which have floated down the 
stream of time are imperfect on many points which the 
others would have supplied. I think these observations 
coincide with the opinion which has been advanced, that 
both are copied from more ancient sources. 



22.] GRAMMATICAL FANCIES. 169 

CHAPTER 22. 
Grammatical subtleties are a proof of a later age, 

Those who have studied the ancient history and litera- 
ture of Greece and Rome, have observed that, when those 
countries began to exhibit signs of decay, the style of their 
writers began to decline and to exhibit certain symptoms 
of decrepitude and bad taste. In this particular, mind 
seems to be subject to the same law as the physical universe, 
for it blooms or withers in proportion to the favorable or 
adverse circumstances of its position. No one will venture 
to compare the grammatical and verbal subtleties which 
were introduced in later ages into the Greek poetry, with 
the noble simplicity of Homer, ^Eschylus or Pindar. A 
few instances of the bad taste, which always marks a dege- 
nerate age, may here be of use to those who have not time 
to read the Classics for themselves. 

About the year 200 before Christ lived one Simmias, a 
native of Rhodes, who is generally considered the inven- 
tor of the style of versification to which 1 refer, for it does 
not appear to have existed before his time, and, indeed, it 
could hardly have been conceived except in an age, when 
the public taste had become exceedingly corrupt : it con- 
sists, in arranging verses in such a way, as to form figures 
of various objects. Six such poems have been preserved, 
forming an axe, a pair of wings, two altars, an egg, and a 
pan-pipe. The last of these is sometimes ascribed to Theo- 
critus, but, no doubt, erroneously : it consisted of twenty 
verses, arranged in ten pairs, each pair of the same length, 
but shorter than the preceding pair ; the whole represen- 
ting ten pipes, each shorter than the other. 

The Latin poets indulged abundantly in conceits of this 
kind. The poet Ausonius was not free irom the infection. 



170 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Among his Idyllia is a poem so constructed that the last 
word of every line is the first word of the following line. 
In our own country Venerable Bede improved upon this 
thought, and wrote an elegy, in such a manner, that the last 
half of each verse was the first half of the next verse. 
Ausonius also wrote poems in which every line ended with 
monosyllables, denoting the members of the body, the 
names of Gods, of the virtues, the letters of the alphabet, 
&c. &c. But Ausonius belonged to a declining age and is 
never placed on the same level in the list of poets with 
Virgil, Horace, or Juvenal. 

These facts have their parallel in the Hebrew writings : 
Thus in the 3rd chapter of Zephaniah, verse 8, * are found 
all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, together with the 
vowel points, and almost all the grammatical marks inven- 
ted to facilitate the reading of the Hebrew language. It 
can hardly be supposed that this curious circumstance was 
the result of accident ; and that not quite all the gramma- 
tical marks are found there, seems to imply that those 
which do not occur, have been invented since. 

There are several other instances of this play on letters 
in the Old Testament. Its grand division into 22 books, 
corresponding to the number of letters in the alphabet, is 
the most striking, and it is notorious that the 119th psalm 
is divided into 22 parts, designated by the names of the 
letters, aleph, heth, gin? el, daleth &c. 

The twenty-fifth psalm contains 22 verses, each of which 
begins with a different letter of the alphabet, from aleph to 
tau. 

Psalm xxxiv contains 22 verses, besides the title A psalm 
of David &c. Each verse begins with a fresh letter ; but 
van is omitted, and to fill up the number the last verse be- 
gins with pe. 



* See Lee's Hebrew Grammar, page 3' 



22.] Grammatical fancies. 17 i 

Several other psalms are constructed on similar princi- 
ples ; for instance Ps. xxxvii, cxi, cxii, and cxlv : but in 
Ps. cxlv one letter D is omitted ; in Ps. xxxvii, 5$ is repea- 
ted and y is omitted. This kind of composition is found 
also in Proverbs, where the last 22 verses of the thirty first 
chapter are also alphabetic ; and still more remarkably in 
the first four chapters of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, 
where two, and sometimes three verses together begin all 
with the same letter. 

This species of writing occurs, therefore, in four books of 
the Old Testament, Psalms, Proverbs, the Prophesy of Ze- 
phaniah, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. In such late 
poets as the last two who are supposed to have flourished 
about the year 600 before Christ, (see page 8) this metrical 
conceit is less remarkable ; but in the Psalms and Proverbs, 
the works of David and Solomon, who are represented as 
first-rate poets, — the former called the " sweet psalmist of 
Israel" — we cannot believe that such puerile absurdities 
could be found. It will, possibly, be replied, that some of 
the Psalms were not written by David, and that some of 
the Proverbs were not written by Solomon ; but it is wor- 
thy of notice that the 25th and 34th psalms, in which these 
alphabetic fancies occur, are superscribed " A psalm of 
David." We must, then, infer, either that the psalms in 
question were not written by David, or that the reputation 
of David as a poet was not so great as has been represen- 
ted. But the consent of the whole Israelitish nation has 
awarded to David the same honours in Israel, which Ho- 
mer enjoyed among the Greeks, Tasso in Italy, Aldhelm 
among the Anglo-Saxons, Taliessin in Wales, Ossian in Scot- 
land, and many other bards, in different countries, whose 
songs have inspired their country men to deeds of valour 
in the field and of conviviality at the banquet. These 
psalms, therefore, were not composed by David, but rather 
by some imitator in a later age, when the glories of past 



172 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP 

times had faded, and the increased facilities, which about 
the 5th and 6th centuries before Christ were opened by the 
more general use of writing, led to the composition of many 
pieces both in prose and verse, which were afterwards 
ascribed to the great masters of the heroic ages. 

If it should be urged that the works, in which these 
devices occur, are not historical books, and therefore ought 
not to be adduced here, the reply is obvious. Although 
not strictly historical, yet they bear with great force upon 
the present inquiry. If the Psalms and Proverbs were not 
written till a later age, — ascribed as they are to King David 
and Solomon, — the historical books, into which some of 
these psalms are interwoven, must, a fortiori, be later still. 
Besides which such pedantic forms of writing, whether 
found in prose or verse, always imply a degenerate age ; 
and, as it is not likely that they should frequently occur 
in prose, we are compelled to have recourse for them to the 
poetical books, on account of the valuable inferences which 
they furnish. 



23.] CHANGE OF LANGUAGE. 173 



CHAPTER 23. 

That the Israelites spoke Egyptian in Egypt, and only ac- 
quired the Hebrew or Canaanitish language by a long 
residence in canaan. 

That any living language, whatsoever, should have remained in the 
same state, from the creation to the time of Moses, is a tiling in itself of 
the utmost improbability 

I find this r*emark in the Celtic Researches, page 91, and 
as the learned author proceeds in a train of thought which 
is closely in harmony with my present line of argument, I 
continue to quote those passages which are most applicable, 
omitting others which do not so immediately concern the 
subject. — 

But we have been accustomed to regard the Hebrew as a sacred, and 
consequently/, as an incorruptible language. 

That sacredness of character, which this language really possesses, 
must have been derived purely from the circumstance of its having been 
the vehicle of divine communication. Before it became the lansma^e of 
prophecy, and of the law, I can conceive of no inherent stamp of sacred- 
ness, with which it could have been distinguished. What idea can we 
form of this language being sacred per se? It had not, surely, been the 
language of angels before the formation of man. It was nothing more 
than a medium for the expression of human ideas and perceptions, and 
for communicating information to human intellects. And why should 
one human language b3 in itself more sacred than another? Why should 
the primitive language, in this respect, be placed before the most mo- 
dern ? 

These observations cannot be disputed : we may ex- 
amine the language of the Old Testament in the same 
manner as any other ancient or modern language, and test 
it by all the various modes which criticism can supply. 
When therefore we find that the Hebrew nation, which 
comes into contact with Europeans for the first time in the 



174 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [cHAP. 

age of Alexander the Great, about 300 years before Christ, 
claim for their sacred books an antiquity of 1200 years 
precedent to that date, it becomes necessary to enquire 
how far the mutability of all human languages is consis- 
tent with such claims. 

On the authority of the Old Testament itself, it appears 
that the Hebrews derive their name from their ancestor 
Heber, one of whose descendants, Abraham, left his native 
country Chaldaea, and settled in the land of Canaan. 
Now 

ATe have a complete demonstration, Gen. xxxi, 47, * that the great 
stock of the family of Heber, which remained in Mesopotamia, spoke 
the Chaldaic and not the Hebrew dialect. 

Laban, who had been brought up in the honse of his fathers, deno- 
minates the heap of witness, certainly in his native tongue, Jegar Saha- 
dutha, NiTnntiH^P . This name is evidently composed of three 
Chaldaic words, ""0*> A heap, 1TW A witness, and JY7 or N]TH 
An appointment. Had Moses literally transcribed all the words of Laban, 
he could not have furnished us with a more satisfactory proof of the lan- 
guage he used. 

Jacob, on the other hand, who had been born in a foreign country 
and had lived there from his infancy, till he w r as upwards of seventy 
years of age, describes the same heap in a language different from that 
of his relations. He calls it l^hx using two Hebrew terms, one of 
which implies a heap and the other a witness or testimony. The name 
is synonymously recorded in both languages, and, therefore, undoubtedly 
in the languages which Laban and Jacob respectively used. The He- 
brew was not then the general dialect of the children of Heber. 

And it is equally clear that it was not peculiar to his family. The pro- 
phet Isaiah, chap, xix, emphatically calls it the language of Canaan, t 

* And Jacob said unto his brethen, Gather stones : and they took stones, and 
made an heap , and they did eat tbere upon the heap. And Laban called it Je- 
gar~sahadutha, but Jacob called it Galeed; Gen. xxxi, 46. 47. Bishop Patrick 
says, " The one is a Syriac, the other a Hebrew naine, both having the same signi- 
ncatioi." Syriac and Chaldaic may be considered as the same language. 

f In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of 
Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts ; one shall be called The city of destruc- 
tion. Isaiah xix, 18. 



23.] CHANGE OF LANGUAGE. 175 

In addition to this sacied testimony, we have the names of men and 
places amongst the old Canaanites, in the time of Abraham, in pure 
Hebrew. Tie have Phoenician inscriptions, the fragment of the Punic 
language in the Paenulus of Plautus, and the remains of that language 
in the island of Malta, as undeniable proofs, that the Hebrew was the 
genuine language of the house of Canaan, which preserved it with little 
variation to a late age. 

This language could by no means have been communicated by Abra- 
ham to the natives of the country. It is certain that he found it, and 
very probable that he learnt it there. In his conversation with the in- 
habitants, he mnst have used their language. It is easy and natural for 
a stranger to acquire the language of the people amongst whom he set- 
tles, especially if it differs from his own only as a dialect. But it is an 
absolute impossibility for several independent kingdoms suddenly to ac- 
commodate themselves to the dialect of a single sojourner : and the lan- 
guage of the old Canaanites, and of the posterity of Abraham, at least, 
the house of Jacob, was the same. 

The native tongue of Abraham must have been that which was spoken 
by his family, in Chaldaea and Mesopotamia. — The former name of this 
very patriarch seems to be referable to the Chaldaic TV2H or N21, 
to be dejected or cad down, rather than to the Hebrew Q""), Exalted, 
Lofty. 

He had been born in the declining years of his father. His lot was 
only that of a younger son. His own wife was barren, and be had long 
been cad down, as to the hope of a progeny. He consequently seems to 
have been regarded in his native country as a dry branch. No separate 
patrimony had been assigned to him. His residence was in a city which 
had received the name of his brother Haran. This must have been an 
afflicting circumstance, in an age when the sons regularly shared the 
paternal estate, and became the heads of families, and the chiefs of the 
little cities : and it seems to have weighed heavy upon Abraham's heart. 
* Lord God," says he, " what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless ! — 
Behold, to me thou hast given no seed, and lo, one born in mine house is 
mine heir." He had hoped to become tb& father of a family ; but from 
that hope he was cast down. To the mortifying epithet which reminded 
him of his affliction, his new Hebrew name, A father of Multitudes, which 
was conferred upon him several years after he had been in the land of 
Canaan, must have presented a very pleasing contrast. To the title of 
Exalted father, it would have been no contrast at all. 



176 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [dlAP. 

Tim 5, the:i, Laban who had always lived in the land of 
Chaldaea, naturally spoke the language of his kindred and 
nation, whilst Jacob, who had been educated in the land 
of Canaan, as naturally spoke the language of that country. 
It is a popular error to suppose that Jacob was a young 
man, when he fled to his cousin Laban, that he might 
escape from his brother Esau. He was, in fact, nearly a 
hundred years old, as may be seen by comparing the dates, 
given in the margins of our Bibles ; and consequently the 
language of Canaan, i. e. the Hebrew language, would be 
familiar to his ear. His father Isaac, and his grandfather 
Abraham, had been settled nearly two hundred years in 
the land which their posterity afterwards occupied. 

Jaci-b, after parting from Laban, would naturally resume 
the us3 of his p iternal language, and ail his family and 
tribe would learn it also. Otherwise he could not have 
associated with the people of Canaan, in the manner 
described in the Bible, where no mention is made of an 
interpreter to intervene between them. But we need not 
suppose that his family lost the use of the Chaldaic, for 
Jacob had lived about 20 years in Chaldaea, 

where lie married Chaldean or Aramcean wives \_llachel, Leah, and 
their two haivlnairis] and here his children were born and partly 
educated. These children could have heard the Hebrew only from their 
father's mouth, even if we suppose that he used it in conversing with 
them. Their mother tongue was the Chaldaic, the same which was 
spoken in the family of tiieir grandfather Laban. Jacob, with his 
household, again returned into the land of Canaan. Here the young 
men married wives who spoke the Canaanitish language. So that, 
when the whole family went down into Egypt, about 33 years after their 
return from Mesopotamia, they must have carried with them both the 
Chaldaic language and that of Canaan. 

But, as the latter was the dialect most familiar to Jacob himself, and 
perhaps the only dialect of the younger and more numerous branches, it 
prevailed over the other kc. 

If this argument should be thought to rest too much on 



23.] CHANGE OF LANGUAGE. 177 

probability, with no other fact to support it than the 
diversity of name, which Laban and Jacob give to the 
same pillar, — confessedly two names taken from different 
languages or dialects, — yet we now come to an ascertained 
fact, which leads to an inference of much importance to 
our argument. When the sons of Jacob first went down 
to Egypt to buy corn, the services of an interpreter were 
required to enable them to transact their business. It is 
clear, therefore, that the language of the Egyptians and 
the Hebrews were different, the one from the other. But, 
when Jacob went to dwell in Egypt, his tribe consisted 
of sixty-six persons only, and as from this time to the 
Exodus, a period of more than 400 years,* they continued 
to reside in Egypt, it becomes almost a physical certainty 
that they lost the use of their native tongue, Hebrew, and 
adopted that of the people, among whom they dwelt. 

There is an important passage in the book of Nehemiah, 
shewing how soon a language is lost when a small number 
of persons fix themselves for permanent residence in a 
strange country. 

In those days also saw I [i. e. Nehemiah] Jews that had married 
wives of Ashdod, of Amnion, and of Moab. And their children spake 
half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews'' language, 
but according to the language of each people. Nehemiah xiii, 23, 24. 

Let us see what facts may be brought forward from the 
books of Genesis and Exodus, in support of the assertion, 
above made, that the Israelites in Egypt exchanged their 
native language for that of the Egyptians. 

We read that, when the Hebrews arrived in Egypt, 
they came into the land of Goshen, the province of 
Egypt, which travellers, coming from Canaan by the usual 



* See page 148, where it is proved that there is no authority for reducing the 
length of the Egyptian residence from 430 to 215 years. 

23 



178 IEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

route, ordinarily arrive at. The narrative continues, 
Gen. xlvi, 31—34. 

And Joseph said unto his brethren, and unto his father's house, " I 
will go up, and shew Pharaoh, and say unto him, ■ My brethren, and 
my father's house, which were in the land of Canaan, are come unto me; 
and the men are shepherds, for their trade hath been to feed cattle; 
and they have brought their flocks, and their herds, and all that they 
have/ And it shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, 
and shall say '"What is your occupation?' that ye shall say, 'Thy 
servants' trade hath -been about cattle from our youth up even until 
now, both we and also our fathers : ' that ye may dwell in the land of 
Goshen ; " for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians. 

In pursuance of this plan, Joseph prepares Pharaoh for 
the reception of Jacob, who afterwards has an interview 
with the king. 

And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a 
possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land of Barneses, as 
Pharaoh had commanded. Gen. xlvii, 11. 

We read, at verse 27 of the same chapter : 

And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; 
and they had possessions therein, and grew and multiplied exceedingly. 

It has been argued, on the strength of this separate re- 
sidence of the Hebrews in Egypt, that they still retained 
the use of their native language. I quote from the Celtic 
Researches, p. 100 : 

During the former part of the two centuries that the Israelites remained 
in Egypt, they were appointed a residence and establishment, separate 
from the inhabitants of the country. In this time their tribes became 
numerous. They expanded from a family into a nation. Their lan- 
guage obtained the stability of a national language, and from henceforth 
they preserved it with considerable purity. 

But he who writes thus, almost retracts in the next 
sentence what he has so written. 

But the condition to which thev were at last reduced, must have 



23.] CHANGE OF LANGUAGE. 170 

rendered it almost impossible for them to preserve it absolutely 
immaculate. New habits of life and new occupations must have 
introduced new ideas, and demanded new terms, and those which were 
already current amongst the Egyptians would, in general, be employed 
on such occasions. 

If it can be proved that so small a number of persons 
as sixty-six, all of one family, ever yet in the history of the 
world, remained more than 400 or even 200 years in the 
midst of a large, dense and highly civilized people, as the 
Egyptians then were, without adopting the language of 
that country instead of their own, then may we admit 
that the Hebrews spoke, at the Exode, precisely the same 
language which they carried with them into Egypt. But 
there are several facts which militate against this inference. 

We have seen that, of the family of Jacob, some were 
Canaanitish Hebrews by birth, others Chaldaic Hebrews, 
and that they spoke different dialects. There was, then, a 
struggle between these rival dialects, which would very 
much smooth the way for the extinction of both by the 
obvious mode of adopting a third, which would be of 
greater use, and in fact essential to them, in the country, 
where they were come to reside. 

But even before Jacob came into Egypt, this change of 
language was already beginning. 

In Genesis, chap, xlviii, verse 5, we read that Jacob says 
to Joseph his son : 

And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born 
unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are 
miue; as Reuben and Simeon they shall be mine. 

What language, it may be asked, were these children 
taught to speak? Their mother was an Egyptian lady, and 
we read of their birth in Genesis xli, 50. 

And unto Joseph w r ere born two sons before the years of famine 
came, which Asenath the daughter of Poti-pherah priest of On bare 
unto him. 



180 



HEBREW SCRIPTURES. CHAP 



It was in the third year of the famine (Gen. xlv, 6), 
that Jacob and his family entered Egypt : so that the two 
children were at least 3 or 4 years old, when their grand- 
father settled in Egypt. It is natural to suppose that they 
spoke the Egyptian language, and had no sufficient 
reason for learning the Hebrew tongue at all. Their 
father was well acquainted with Egyptian, and in fact 
used it continually in discharging his duties as prime min- 
ister of Pharaoh. These offices he continued to discharge 
until his death, and therefore, he was continually in the 
habit of speaking the Egyptian language, which, by a law 
of nature, became the language of his children after him. 
Of this natural law r there are^exemplifications in the world 
at present. It is well known that there are many consuls, 
ambassadors and others, in England and elsewhere, whose 
families have completely adopted the language of the 
people among whom they dwell. The English chaplain 
at Brussels has a large family of children, some of whom 
cannot speak English, although there are several thousand 
English residents in that city. There is also in France 
a clergyman, now or lately occupying a high post in the 
office of Censorship of Ecclesiastical books printed in the 
diocese of Paris, who, though an Irishman by birth, has 
almost lost the use of his native tongue in consequence of 
his long residence in Psris. 

But it is said that the Israelites resided in the land of 
Goshen, separate from the native inhabitants. It must 
first be observed that we know nothing about the land of 
Goshen, save this fact, that the Israelites were placed to 
dwell in it. What, therefore, may have been the peculiar 
circumstances which caused it to be selected, we can only 
conjecture. But it is of no importance to our present en- 
quiry. For it is quite certain that they were not alone in 
the land of Goshen, and did not live there during the whole 
of their residence in Egypt. Moses, who led them out of 



23.] GRAMMATICAL FANCIES. 181 

Egypt, was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus, and 
before his birth, his countrymen having been made slaves 
certainly did not occupy the land of Goshen all to them- 
selves. The circumstances related of the birth of Moses 
shew plainly that the Hebrews in Egypt were in a state of 
bondage under the task-masters of Pharaoh. It is prob- 
able that they had been in this state many years, ever since 
the death of Joseph ; for we read in Exodus, i, 8 : 

Now there arose up anew king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. 

Joseph is supposed to have died about 1635 before Christ, 
at least this is the date marked in the margin of our bibles- 
As the same system of chronology places the Exode in 
1495 before Christ, it appears that the Hebrews remained 
in Egypt 140 years after the death of Joseph, and sixty 
years before the birth of Moses.* During by far the greater 
portion of this time, perhaps all of it, they were in a state 
of grinding slavery, reduced to the occupation of brick- 
making, and other hard service, as we read in Exodus 
i,13: 

And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour : 
and they made their lives "bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in 
brick, and in all manner of service in the field : all their service, where- 
in they made them serve, was with rigour. 

Neither can it be said that the Hebrews abstained from 
intermarrying with the natives during their residence in 
Egypt; for we read in Leviticus xxiv, 10 : 

And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egy- 
ptian, went out among the children of Israel : and this son of the 
Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. 

Is it possible that in this condition the Israelites should 



* This is the most favourable calculation, admitting that the slavery in Egypt 
lasted only 215 years. See page 148. 



182 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

have retained the use of the same language, which their 
ancestor Jacob spoke a hundred years before w r hen he came 
into Egypt, but which even Jacob's own children did not 
speak as their mother tongue, because his wives were 
Chaldean women, and nearly all his children were by birth 
Chaldeans also ? 

The effects which slavery will produce may still be seen 
in the West Indies and America, where millions of slaves 
now exist, all speaking the language which they have learnt 
since their captivity began. In the English settlements 
some of these slaves speak a broken English, others have 
formed a base and ignominious dialect, which an Eng- 
lishman could not understand, and so different from the 
language of the blacks in other parts of the settlement that 
it was thought necessary, or advisable, a few years ago, to 
translate the Bible expressly for their use. In none of the 
American settlements have the blacks retained the langu- 
age which they carried with them from Africa, except that 
a few words and names have been here and there preser- 
ved, in consequence of peculiar circumstances, which need 
not at present occupy our attention. 

And yet, be it remembered, the colonies of black slaves 
in America have been yearly augmented by fresh impor- 
tations from Africa, consisting, each year, of as many in- 
dividuals as went out of Egypt at the time of the Exode. 
It may then be fairly inferred that the Israelites lost the 
use of their original language during the space of more 
than 200 — if not 400 — years that they resided in Egypt, 

Let us, however, enquire into the early history of Moses 
himself. It is unnecessary to repeat the story of his being 
placed in the ark of bulrushes and found by Pharaoh's 
daughter. But the mode in which he was brought up is 
deserving of notice. The mother of Moses was, by a de- 
vice of his sister, introduced to be his nurse. 

And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, 



23.] CHANGE OF LANGUAGE. 183 

and he became her son. And she [Pharaoh's daugnter] called his name 
Moses : and she said, " Because I drew him out of the water." Ex. ii, 10. 

In Mant and D'oily's Family Bible is the following note 
to the word Moses : 

u Which in the Egyptian language signifies one saved or drawn out 
of the water. Mo or Mou was the Egyptian for water. Calmet, Bry m 
ant." 

Thus, then, the young child Moses, was bred up in the 
house of Pharaoh's daughter, who assumed the charge of 
his education, gave him an Egyptian * name, and adopted 
him for her son. Is it not, then, a moral, nay, a physical, 
certainty, that he learnt Egyptian for his mother tongue ? 
Is it likely that a princess would have bred up a foundling 
to speak any other language than her own ? Is it not a 
more obvious explanation of these difficulties to assert 
that the Egyptians and the Hebrews spoke at this time the 
same language — the language which prevailed at that time 
in the land of Egypt, where the one people acted as im- 
perious masters, the other were treated as vile and ignomi- 
nious slaves ? 

When, therefore, the Israelites, escaping from this 
tyranny, found themselves once more in the open wilderness 
of Arabia, where their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob roamed as independent chiefs, among other kindred 
Arab tribes, they carried with them the dialect, not of 
Canaan, but of Egypt. And it must not be forgotten that 
from the nature of their servive in Egypt, there were, 
probably, very few men of literary acquirements among 
them. The circumstances of the case do not admit of any 
ether inference : they were a nation of slaves, and their 
slavery had been peculiarly severe. We have no record 



* Dr Lee says it is doubtful whether the word is Egyptian or Hebrew. 

" Moses (n^D) ' s so ca ^ t( l ou account of his having been taken out of the 
water, as the text shews, whether the word itself be Egyptian or Hebrew, for, 
on this subject learned men differ. H. Gram. art. 178, 2. 3. page 153. 



184 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

of any one, in the whole number of the Jewish people, 
better than a slave, with the exception of Moses himself, 
who had been educated in all the learning of the Egyptians. 
But the new T mode of life, into which they were thrown, 
would soon produce a corresponding change in the habits 
and character of the people. They dwelt no longer in 
houses of brick or stone, but in canvas tents, w 7 hich at a 
moment's notice could be struck and transferred to 
another place. Their wealth consisted in their flocks and 
herds, and especially camels, those natives of the desert, 
which thrive the most w r here every other animal, without 
their aid, would starve. With the altered habits of the 
nation, their language, which was probably limited to a 
very narrow vocabulary — certainly much narrower than 
that of the Egyptians, from w r hich it was in the most 
part taken — must have immediately begun to adapt itself 
to the situation in which they were placed, and at the end 
of the forty years, which elapsed before they crossed the 
Jordan, would, in all probability be much changed from 
what it was when they went forth from Egypt — changed, 
I mean, not in general principles but by the introduction 
of new terms to express the new objects which surrounded 
them and the new wants which they daily felt. 

We must not suppose that the Israelites, during their 
passage through Arabia, were entirely secluded from the 
world, or held no intercourse with the other tribes, who 
roamed the desert like themselves. So far was this from 
being the case that Moses their leader had frequent cause 
to censure them for their proneness to associate, and even to 
form matrimonial alliances with other tribes. The follow r - 
ing are the passages from the Pentateuch which allude to 
the intercourse between the Israelites and other tribes in 
the desert. 

1. The Israelites fight with the tribe of the Amalekites 
in the Desert of Sin. Ex. xvii. 8. 



23.] CHANGE OF LANGUAGE. 185 

2. Jethro and his family visit Moses in the Israelitish 
camp. Ex. xviii, 1. See afterwards Numb, x, 29. 

These events happened soon after the fifteenth day of 
the second month from the time of their leaving Egypt. 
See ch. xvi, L 

3. Noibeks xii, 1 . And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses 
because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married ; for he had 
married an Ethiopian woman. 

The country, to which the wife of Moses belonged, here 
called Ethiopia, is Cush in the original Hebrew, and may 
fairly be interpreted in a very wide sense. Ethiopia also, in 
Grecian history, designated not only the modern Ethiopia, 
but parts of Egypt, Arabia, and perhaps other neighbouring 
countries. We may then freely admit that the Ethiopian 
woman here mentioned was the same person elsewhere 
described as Jethro's daughter, but the manner in which 
her name is here introduced, is perfectly incompatible with 
her having been already described, and that so fully, in 
Exodus ii, as the daughter to the priest of Midian, and 
married to Moses, possibly several years before the strife 
which Miriam and Aaron now stirred up on her account. 
This leads to the following conclusion either that the two 
accounts of the wife of Moses were written by tw 7 o distinct 
authors, or that the Ethiopian woman, whom Moses mar- 
ried, was not the same as the daughter of Jethro priest of 
Midian. In the former case, the whole Pentateuch, as it 
now is, cannot be considered as the work of Moses, in the 
latter case, the mixture of the Israelites with other tribes 
would appear to have begun very early after the Exodus, 
and to have been carried to a very great extreme. 

4. Moses sends messengers to the king of Eclom, for 
leave to pass through his territories. Numb, xx, 14. 

5. The Israelites are defeated by Arad king of the 
Canaan ites. Numb, xxi, 1. 

24 



186 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

6. The king of Sihon, having refused to allow the 
Israelites a free passage through his territories, is defeated. 
The result of this battle is remarkable. 

Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land 
from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Amraon : for 
the border of the children of Ammon was strong, And Israel took all 
these cities : and Israel dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, in 
Heshbon, and in all the villages thereof &c. 

Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. 

And Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof* 
and drove out the Amorites that were there. And they turned and 
went up by the way of Bashan, and Og the king of Bashan went out 
against them, he and all his people, to the battle at Edrei &c. So they 
smote him and his sons, and all his people until there was none left 
him alive : and they possessed his land. 

7. From Numb. c. xxii to c. xxv, we have the narrative 
of Balak and Balaam : but though the Moabites, whose 
king was Balak, seem disposed to make common cause 
with the Midianites against the Hebrews, yet nothing of a 
hostile nature immediately ensues ; for we read in ch. xxv, 
1—3: 

And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit 
whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people 
unto the sacrifices of their gods : and the people did eat, and bowed 
down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor : and 
the auger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. 

Then we read of Zimri, the Simeonite, who was slain 
with Cozbi the Midianitish woman. When these excesses 
were checked, a detachment of a thousand men from each 
tribe defeated the Midianites; but, though all the adult 
male captives were put to death, yet the females and 
children were kept alive, though Moses afterwards com- 
manded them to 

kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that 
hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that 



23.] GRAMMATICAL FANCIES. 187 

have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 
Numb, xxxi, 17 — 18. 

The reason of this reservation is but too well understood : 
slavery and concubinage were the lot of these young fem- 
ales whose lives the fury of the war had spared. 

By this summary, then, we see that the conquest of their 
destined country by the Israelites, was gradually effected. 
Before the death of Moses they had taken possession of 
the kingdoms of Bashan, Sihon, and portions of the Moabi- 
tish territories. These were assigned to the tribes of Reu- 
ben, Gad, and half of the tribe of Manasseh, and were at 
once occupied by them before the death of Moses. It is 
not necessary to detail all the events which followed. The 
death of Moses is generally placed in the year before Christ 
1451, and in that year or the following, Joshua led the 
Israelites over the river Jordan. The conquest of the land 
occupied, it is said, twenty nine years ; but this is one of 
those conventional dates which are adopted for the sake 
of forming a system of chronology. It is difficult to say 
when the conquest of the Holy Land was complete : for 
the different nations which possessed it, were alternately 
defeated and victorious ; whilst the Israelites were, in con- 
sequence of these vicisssitudes of fortune, sometimes tribu- 
tary to their enemies, sometimes in the receipt of tribute 
from them. These alternations of fortune arose from their 
neglect of the command of Moses, to destroy all the in- 
habitants of Canaan and to leave none alive. But this 
command was too hard for human nature to obey. The 
most ruthless band of savages that every perpetrated the 
most terrible deeds of blood, would have been unequal to 
the execution of such a sentence. For it was the avowed 
intention of the Israelitish people to occupy, not to ravage, 
trie land of Canaan ; and, if all the inhabitants of the land 
had been destroyed without mercy, the whole land would 
have returned to a state of nature, and become a dense 



188 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

wilderness. Hence we read in the first chapter of Judges 
the following passages : 

Y. 21. And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites 
that inhabited Jerusalem ; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of 
Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day. 

V. 27. Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean 
and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Do? 
and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the 
inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns : but the Canaanites would dwell 
in that land. 

V. 29 Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in 
Gezer ; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. 

jV. 30. Neither did Zebulun drive out &c. 

Y. 31. Neither did Asher &c. 

Y. 33. Neither did Naphtali &c. 

We repeatedly meet with the descendants of the Canaa- 
nitish tribes throughout all the history of the Jews. Some 
of the chief officers of the kings both of Judah and Israel* 
as Uriah the Hittite, belonged to these native races ; and 
in I kings ix, 20 — 21, they are described as being very 
numerous : 

And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, 
Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, their 
children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of 
Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon 
levy a tribute of bondservice unto this day. 

It may reasonably be supposed that the Israelitish host, 
however numerous, when they crossed the Jordan, were 
yet not so numerous as all the inhabitants of Canaan, put 
together. Even when they had destroyed so many thou- 
sands of the natives, the remainder, most probably, still 
surpassed them in number. The Norman conquest of 
England is in many respects analogous to the occupation 
of the Holy Land by the Israelites. The enmity between 



23.] GRAMMATICAL FANCIES. 189 

the English and Normans was intense, and years passed 
away before their animosities were allayed. Yet the Nor- 
mans were remarkably few when compared with all the 
inhabitants of England; and their occupation of the 
country was as complete as that of Palestine by the Israe- 
lites. We do not find that the Normans exterminated the 
English. On the contrary the English have so completely 
overgrown and amalgamated the foreign race that no dif- 
ference is now observable between the two people. Their 
language, also, is the same, and, what bears more closely 
upon our argument, the present language of England is 
different from the Norman-French on the one hand, and 
the Anglo-Saxon on the other, which were spoken by the 
contending parties at the time of the Norman Conquest. 

In the same way, it may be argued, the language which 
the Israelites brought with them out of Egypt, must have 
come into collision, when they entered Canaan, with that 
which was spoken by the inhabitants of that country. The 
natural result is evident. A gradual union of the two 
would be effected ,which in process of time would produce 
a third, different, but yet not totally different, from both- 
This has always happened in every country where two 
hostile races of people have sunk down into a quiet and 
peaceful population. 

From the date, then, at which we have now arrived, B. 
C. 1421, when the Israelites entered Canaan, to the time 
when they were carried captive to Babylon, about 600 be- 
fore Christ, nearly nine hundred years elapsed. This is a 
' hundred years more than have passed since the Norman 
Conquest to the present time. Was then the language of 
Joshua and his invading host the same as that afterwards 
spoken by Hezekiah and the other kings who reigned in 
Israel just before the Babylonian Captivity ? The question 
may be solved by reference to our own country. During 
the 800 years that have passed since the Norman Conquest 



190 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

the English language has changed so much that a book 
written in English at the time of the Conquest would be 
now unintelligible to a common reader. Indeed many such 
books have been preserved, and they are unintelligible to 
all but scholars. Yet England has received no importation 
of foreigners since the Conquest — not even an invading 
army has ever remained a day amongst us, and the nations, 
Norman and Saxon, began frcm the first to amalgamate. 
But in the case of the Holy Land all is different. The 
country was continually exposed to the ravages of foreign 
armies, and a hundred years before the last exportations of 
thelsraelites to Babylon, colonies of Assyrians, and a rabble 
of every description began to occupy the lands from which 
Israelitish masters had been displaced. Again, in the year 
B. C. 560, when the Israelitish captives who had been 
carried to Babylon, were all dead, leaving behind them the 
children which, by a law of Nature, are born even to cap- 
tives and to slaves, — when these children, having reached 
the age of manhood, were allow T ed, after years of slavery, 
to return to Palestine, is it to be supposed that their lan- 
guage was still the same, after the vicissitudes through which 
it had passed ? 

I shall pursue the argument no further but briefly reca- 
pitulate the facts to which it has led us. 

1. The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, spoke the 
language of the Canaanites, among whom they dwelt, 
whatever that language may have been. 

2. Jacob, by his residence in Mesopotamia, acquired a. 
knowledge of the Chaldaic dialect which was the principal 
language of all his family, who were born and educated in 
Mesopotamia. 

3. Jacob's descendants in Egypt lost their native tongue 
and acquired that of the Egyptians. 

4. The Israelites again underwent a change or modifica- 



23.] GRAMMATICAL FANCIES. 191 

tion of their language by admixture with the inhabitants of 
Canaan. 

5. The lapse of 900 years from the entrance into Cana- 
an to the return from Captivity in 536 effected another 
change of dialect so decided, that two persons, living, one 
at the beginning, the other at the end of this period, could 
not have understood one another. 

6. In conclusion, and as the consequence of the former 
five propositions, it follows that Moses must have written 
whatever he wrote, in the Egyptian language, or that \a hat 
he wrote would have been unintelligible to those for whose 
use he wrote. So that either the Pentateuch, which we 
now have, is not the original work of Moses, or it is writ- 
ten in the Egyptian language — a theory which no writer 
has yet ventured to affirm. 



Note. 

The following interesting extract is from Dr Bosworth's learned work on the 
Origin of the English, Germanic and Scandinavian languages: 

The sounds of a language, like other things, are by time 
subject to mutations, and these changes are homogeneous 
or heterogeneous, according as the cause of change is in- 
ternal or external. In this way diphthongs become vowels, 
and vowels again diphthongs. An elaborate treatise would 
point out the changes in a language, if an uninterrupted 
succession of MSS. of different ages could be procured. 

Independently of these succeeding general changes of the 
whole language, there are diversities existing at the same 
time, called dialects. The Anglo-Saxon is subject to these 
diversities in the highest degree, and with a free people it 
could not be otherwise. When a nation easily submits to 



192 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

an absolute sway, individuals have little attachment to what 
is their own in character and opinions/ and easily suffer 
themselves to be modelled in one general mould of the 
court or priesthood. On the other hand, when a nation, 
as the Angles and Friesians, is jealous of its liberty,and will 
only submit to the law enacted for the public good, while 
every individual regulates his private affairs for himself, the 
slightest peculiarity of character, unrestrained by the as- 
sumed power of any mortal, developes itself freely in the 
proper expressions, and every individuality is preserved. 
This I believe is the reason why in the province of Friesia 
are more peculiarites than in the other six provinces of the 
present kingdom of the Netherlands, and more in England 
alone than in the whole of Europe. Applying this prin- 
ciple in language, the very mirror of the soul, we find the 
same variety ; so that among a people so fond of liberty 
as the Angles and Friesians, not only every district, but 
every village, nay, every hamlet, must have a dialect of its 
own. The diversity of dialects since the French Revolu- 
tion of 1795, is much decreasing by the centralisation of 
power taking daily more effect in the Netherlands : the 
former republic, by leaving to every village the manage- 
ment of its domestic affairs, preserved every dialect unim- 
paired. Nevertheless, at this very time, those living on 
the coast of Eastmaliom, in Friesia, do not understand the 
people of Schiermonikoog, a little island with one village 
of the same name, almost in sight of the coast. The 
Hindelopians speak a dialect unintelligible to those living 
at the distance of four miles from them. Nay, the Friesians 
have still dialects with a dialect. 

" In the village where I was born," [says Mr Halbertoma, 
as quoted by Dr Bosworth, p. 37] we said indiscriminately, 
after, efter, and setter, Anglo-Saxon sef ter ; tar, and tser, 
Anglo-Saxon tare; par and pser, A.-S. pera; tarre, and 
tsere cons u mere, A.-S. teran ; kar, and kser, A.-S. eyre ; 



23.] note. 193 

hi lei, and hi lai, A.-S. laeg ; perfect tense of ik lizz/ hi 
leit, A.-S. liege, li# ; smarre, and smaere, A.-S. smerian ; 
warre, and waere, warge and wserge, A.-S. weran, werian 
tueri, resistere. On this matter I can produce a very- 
striking example in the centre of Friesian nationality. 
It is now, I believe, sixteen years since I spoke to an old 
woman at Molquerum, a village now almost lying in ruins, 
but still divided into seven little islands, called Pollen, 
joined to each other by (breggen A.-S. bricgas) little 
bridges. Now the good woman told me in her homely 
style, that, when she was a child, every island had its 
peculiar way of pronouncing, and that when an inhabitant 
of any of the villages entered her mother's house, she could 
easily ascertain to which Pol the person belonged, merely 
by some peculiarity of speech. Dependence may be placed 
on this fact, as I have ascertained its truth by strict 
enquiry. I have no doubt the same peculiarity was obser- 
vable in almost every village of the Anglo-Saxons. Every 
Englishman who notices the diversity of dialects to be 
found in Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland, Cumber- 
land, or Lancashire, and by these judges of the rest, and 
considers what they have formerly been, will perhaps 
enter, in some measure, into my views." 



194 ] HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 



CHAPTER 24. 



That the Chaldee language was the result oi the Roman 

CONQUEST OE JUDAEA, AND NOT OF THE BaBILONISH CAPTIVITY 

PROVED 1ST EROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

It has been remarked at the beginning of our second 
chapter that the Hebrew Scriptures are " written mostly in 
the Hebrew, but partly in a different language, called 
Chaldee ; " and I propose now to examine this point a 
little more minutely. To determine the nature of this 
second language, called Chaldee, is of the utmost importance 
to our argument, because it is affirmed, but without any 
evidence of fact to support the affirmation, that this Chaldee 
was, from the time of Ezra to that of Christ, the common 
language of the Jews, who had forgotten the old Hebrew 
language during the Babylonish Captivity. 

In the first place it must be observed that the portions 
of the Old Testament, written in this Chaldee dialect, con- 
sist of only 283 verses altogether. 

These are: Jeremiah, chap, x, verse 11. Daniel, chap, 
ii, verse 4 to the end of chapter vii. Ezra, chap, iv, verse 
8, to chap, vii, verse 27. 

1. Ezra and others after the captivity still wrote in Hebrew 
and not in Chaldee, 

A serious difficulty here immediately presents itself. If 
the Israelites during the Babylonish Captivity had forgotten 
the old Hebrew language, why did not Ezra, who wrote 
nearly 100 years after the Jews had returned from Babylon, 
write all his books in the Chaldee language, which the 
people, according to this theory, could have understood, 
rather than in the old Hebrew, which they had forgotten ? 



24.] CHALDEE LANGUAGE. 195 

Again, it is admitted that Ezra wrote the books of Chro- 
nicles : why did he not w r rite them also in Chaldee ? As 
regards Daniel and Jeremiah, it may be said that being 
among those who were carried captives to Babylon, they 
had not forgotten the old Hebrew, in which language they 
accordingly wrote their books. But this solution proves 
too much, for the Babylonish Captivity was not effected at 
once : it took place at different times, as may be seen by 
the chronological table given in page 31, and those who 
were carried captive the last time, B. C. 588, may — at least 
some of them — have been alive when the decree of Cyrus 
permitted them to return. But this point shall be more 
fully developped hereafter. Let us return at present to 
the consideration of the extraordinary fact that Ezra, who 
professedly wrote books for popular use, is supposed to 
have used a language which the people, for whom he 
wrote them, had entirely forgotten. And not only Ezra ; 
but Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, all of whom wrote 
after the Captivity, are supposed to have used a language, 
which their countrymen no longer understood. This 
circumstance did not fail to arrest the attention of Dean 
Prideaux, and he has, in his learned " Connection of the 
History of the Old and New Testament," taken notice 
of the fact, but not of its inconsistency. Following 
the received opinions, and not appearing to think that it 
was a difficulty, he has given the following account of 
the matter : 

The common people, by having so long conversed with the Babylo- 
nians, learned their language, and forgot their own. It happened indeed 
otherwise to the children of Israel in Egypt. Tor, although they lived 
there above three times as long as the Babylonish Captivity lasted, yet 
they still preserved the Hebrew language among them, and brought it 
back entire with them into Canaan. The reason of this was, in Egypt 
they all lived together in the land of Goshen ; but on their being carried 
captive by the Babylonions, they were dispersed all over Chaldea and 



196 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Assyria, and being there intermixed with the people of the land had 
their converse with them, and therefore were forced to learn their 
language; and this soon induced a disuse of their own among them ; by 
which means it came to pass, that after their return, the common people, 
especially those of them who had been bred up in that captivity, under- 
stood not the Holy Scriptures in the Hebrew language, nor their poste- 
rity after them. And, therefore, when Ezra read the law to the people, 
he had several persons standing by him, well skilled in both the Chaldee 
and Hebrew languages, who interpreted to the people in Chaldee what 
he first read to them in Hebrew. 

The rest of the account may be seen in the Appendix 
to this volume. Sufficient has been extracted to shew the 
nature of the explanation which the author means to give, 
of the remarkable fact before us. This explanation would 
no doubt be admissible, if Ezra had confined himself to 
reading the Scriptures for the benefit of the people, but, as 
he wrote a large quantity of new Scriptures and revised 
the old ones, adding — so they say — many explanatory 
interpretations of his own, it seems preposterous that he 
should adopt the language which had been forgotten, and 
reject that, in which alone the people could understand 
him, a plan no less toilsome to himself — for he also had 
never spoken the Hebrew — than pernicious to the best 
interests of the people. 

But we are told that, notwithstanding this inconsistency, 
it is a fact that Ezra did, out of reverence perhaps to the 
old Law, adopt the Hebrew language for his own compo- 
sitions, and that the interpretations of the whole book of 
the Law, which he caused to be read along with the He- 
brew text, in order that the people might understand him, 
are those very Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases, which 
are still in existence, and have often been published in the 
Polyglott and other editions of the Hebrew Bible. This 
then is the case of those who argue that the Jew r s spoke 
the Chaldee language after the Babylonish captivity. 



24.] CHALDEE LANGUAGE. 197 

It remains to see what may be said on the opposite side of 
the question ; and I shall endeavour to shew,, on evidence 
which cannot be gainsaid, that the Jews as a nation did 
not forget the Hebrew tongue in consequence of the 
Babylonish Captivity, but continued to speak it down to 
the time of the Christian era — or, more correctly speaking, 
that the Hebrew, such as we now have it, was the language 
spoken by the Jews, not before but after the return of that 
people from Babylon. It is not however denied that it was 
also very similar to the language spoken before the capti- 
vity, but less and less similar the nearer we approach to the 
time of Moses and the Exodus. In short the language of 
the Israelites, like that of every people upon earth, was 
a flowing and changing stream of words and thoughts, 
gathering from all sides as it went, until the Egyptian 
which they spoke in Egypt, became, a thousand years after, 
the Hebrew, the last form of the language spoken by the Jews 
before the Romans subverted their commonwealth neve r 
to be restored. 

1. In the first place then the use of the Hebrew tongue 
by Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi 
who lived between 606 and 456, during or after the 
captivity, in a continuous and contemporary series, shows, 
if these books were written by the supposed authors, and 
at the periods of time here assigned to them, that the 
Hebrew was then a living tongue and the purity of style 
in their writings is not surpassed by that of the books of 
Moses, Joshua or Samuel. 

2. The introduction of 283 verses in the Chaldee dialect, 
may be otherwise explained. The single verse in Jere- 
miah ; x, 1 1 : is as follows : 

Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens 
and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under 
these heavens. 



198 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

This verse is in what is called the Chaldee language. I 
imagine it is a quotation from some book in that language, 
and that Jeremiah quoted the original words as more 
forcible than a Hebrew translation of them would be. Dr 
W. Lowth's commentary on this verse is as follows : 

This verse is written in Chaldee, as if the prophet designed to put 
these words in the mouths of the Jews, wherewith they might make a 
public profession of their own faith in the true God, and be able to 
answer the heathens that would entice them to idolatry. 

The Chaldee verses in Daniel and Ezra may be also 
satisfactorily explained. Let us turn to the first of these 
in Daniel chap. ii, which begins thus : 

And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchad- 
nezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep 
brake from him. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and 
the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the 
king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king, and the king 
said unto them, " I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled 
to know the dream." 

Verse 4 begins : 

Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriac, " king, live for 
ever ! tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation." 

These words are in Chaldee or Syriac, as is declared in 
the words themselves ; for what is usually called Chaldee 
is the same as the Syriac which was spoken at Damascus, 
in Mesopotamia and among many of the nations to the 
north and east of Palestine. The reason why these parts 
of Daniel, from ch. ii, to the end of ch. vii, are written in 
this Syriac or Chaldee language is partly explained by 
Bishop Newton, as quoted in the notes to the Family 
Bible. 

Hitherto the prophecies of Daniel, that is, from the fourth verse of 
the second chapter to this {the v\th~\ chapter, are written in Chaldee. 



24.] CHALDEE LANGUAGE. 199 

As they greatly concerned the Chaldeans, so they were published in that 
language. But the remaining prophecies are written in Hebrew, because 
they treat altogether of affairs subsequent to the times of the Chaldeans, 
and relate not at all to them, but principally to the Church and 
people of God. 

I do not dispute this reasoning, but am content with a 
different sort of explanation, that the Old Testament is a 
compilation from various sources, and that the passage, be- 
fore us, forming a body of separate facts, and existing in 
the Syrian language, was transferred, in its totality, into 
the book of the Old Testament. 

The passages in Ezra, which are in the Syriac or Chaldee 
tongue, admit of a still more ready explanation. 

Chap, iv, verse 7. And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, 
Mitliredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes 
king of Persia ; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian 
tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. Kehuin the Chancellor 
and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes 
the king in this sort : Then wrote Eehuin the chancellor, and Shimshai 
the scribe, and the rest of their companions ; the Dinaites, the Aphar- 
sathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babyloni- 
ans, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites, and the rest of 
the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over, and set 
in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, and 
at such a time. This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, 
even unto Artaxerxes the king ; Thy servants the men on this side the 
river, and at such a time. Be it known unto the king, that the Jews 
which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, &c. 

This is the beginning of what is termed the Chaldee 
portion of the book of Ezra, and it extends to the 27th 
verse of the seventh chapter. 

But here also, as in Daniel, the extract says of itself that 
it is in the Syrian tongue, and neither in Daniel or Ezra 
is any mention made of any distinct Chaldee language at 
all. But it is easy to be perceived why this portion of 
Ezra is not iu Hebrew. The whole of it consists of au- 



200 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

then tic documents, the first of which is the letter of Rehum 
and the others above-mentioned. Is it remarkable that 
their letter to the Persian king should be written in the 
Syriac language, which, (whether the same as the Chaldee 
or not) they all certainly were familiar with ? On the con- 
trary it would be most remarkable if their letter had been 
written in any other language. That the king of Persia 
might understand it, we find that it was not only written 
in the Syrian but also accompanied by a translation in the 
Syrian language, i. e., as all agree, from the Syrian tongue 
into the Persian. It is evident that the Persian translation 
could be of no use to the Jews, but the Syrian original has 
been preserved, and it surely would be unreasonable to 
expect that it should be w r ritten in Hebrew or, indeed, in 
any other language than the Syrian. 

The question then is reduced into a very narrow com- 
pass. Did Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah, Haggai, Zechariah and 
Malachi write 283 verses only in the language which the 
Jews could understand, and deliver all the mass of their 
writings in a dead language, whilst on the other hand their 
Syrian neighbours and enemies wrote in the language of 
the Jews, or did these Jewish writers compose their writings 
in their own language, leaving the letters which their Syrian 
enemies wrote against them, to tell their own story in the 
Syrian tongue ? The question may, it would seem, be 
answered with little or no hesitation. 

But what was the nature of the Syrian or Chaldee dialect ? 
To answer this question we must consider who were the 
Syrians, by whom it was spoken. Now it is wellknown that 
the kingdom of Syria has always been the territory bounding 
Israel on the north and north-east, and itself bounded on 
the west by the Mediterranean Sea, and on the east by the 
desert, into which however it stretches much farther than 
the corresponding eastern frontier of the Israelites. The 
kings of Syria w r ere often in arms against the kingdom of 



24.] CHALDEE LANGUAGE. 201 

Israel, after its separation from Judah. Even before that 
time we read of their kings fighting against king David, but 
with small hopes of success whilst the twelve tribes were 
united under one king ; for 

David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men. Then David 
put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to 
David and brought gifts. II Sam. viii, 5. 6. 

The names of Benhadad and Hazael kings of Syria, are 
well known to the readers of Jewish history : for the nation 
was powerful among the small states of that age and coun- 
try, until it was destroyed by the kings of Assyria, who, as 
it is recorded in II Kings, xvi, 9, 

went up against Damascus, aud took it, and carried the people of it 
captive to Kir, and slew Rezin. 

The king of Assyria, who destroyed the kingdom of 
Syria, was Tiglathpileser, to whom Ahaz, king of Judah, 
about the year 742 before Christ, 

sent messengers saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up 

and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand 
of the king of Israel, which rise up against me. 

It was an unlucky request of Ahaz : he would have 
been wiser to make peace with the petty kings who 
molested him, than to call in the aid of the gigantic power 
which was at this very time extending its limits over all 
Asia. But sovereigns, in their wars, have no care but to 
extricate themselves from their immediate distress or to 
gain the object of their immediate pursuit. Tiglathpilezer 
came with speed, and destroyed Rezin king of Syria ; two- 
years afterwards he began to cut Israel short, and to carry 
away its people for slaves : but like his precursor Poly- 
phemus, he granted his friend the king of Judah a respite, 
and devoured him the last of the three. 

From this time Syria continued to be part of the Assyrian 
empire, and afterwards passed with the other provinces 
into the hands of the Median and Persian monarchs. 

26 



202 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

It is then remarkable, that there should be a confusion 
between the Chaldee and the Syrian languages, for Chal- 
daea and Syria were certainly not the same country, though 
the later kingdom of Syria contained part of Chaldaea if 
not all of it, within its frontiers. The first instance of 
confusion between these two countries occurs in Judges 
iii, 8 : 

Therefore the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold 
them into the hand of Chusan-llisathaim king of Mesopotamia; and 
the children of Israel served Chusan-liisathaim eight years. 

The word Mesopotamia seems inappropriate here, as a 
translation of the Hebrew word Aramnaharaim ; in the 
Septuagint version it is rendered XvpLas irord^wv, Syria of 
the rivers. Our translators have apparently followed the 
Latin Vulgate "regis Mesopotamias," but the name Meso- 
potamia is a Greek word, and Alexander was the first 
Greek who explored those countries, several hundred 
years after the time of Chushan Risathaim. 

The language spoken by the Syrians and the Assyrians 
was probably the same, for when " Sennacherib king of 
Assyria came up against all the fenced cities of Judah and 
took them, [II Kings xviii, 13]," he sent a detachment 
of his army to besiege Jerusalem, and when Rabshaheh 
spoke to the soldiers who were manning the walls of Jeru- 
salem, in Hebrew, so that all might understand him, the 
chiefs of the garrison, fearful lest their soldiers might be 
tempted by fears or promises to submit, interfered and 
endeavoured to silence Rabshakeh. 

Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiuh, and Shebna, and Joah, unto 
Eabshakeh, " Speak, T pray thee to thy servants in the Syrian language, 
for we understand it : and talk not with us in the Jews' language in 
the ears of the people that are on Ihe wall." 

Thus then we obtain the following fact : that the Syrian 
language spoken by the tribes and various people on the 



24.] TARGUMS NOT ANCIENT. 203 

north-east of Palestine as far as Babylon, was in existence 
long before the captivity of the Jews ; that it continued to 
exist after the return of the Jews, and throughout the whole 
of its duration it was different from the language of the 
Jews : that it was the language afterwards called Chaldee, 
and still spoken by the aliens placed in the Holy Land 
after the Captivity, that the Jewish writers have written 283 
verses in this language, consisting almost entirely of matters, 
concerning foreigners alone, and especially of documents, 
letters and papers, which could not have been originally 
written in Hebrew, and that these same writers have never- 
theless written the greater part of their books in the Hebrew 
language.. Do not these facts amount to a demonstration 
that the Jews still spoke Hebrew after the Babylonish Cap- 
tivity notwithstanding all the suppositions and hypotheses 
which writers, having a theory to maintain, have advanced 
to the contrary ? 

2. The Targums or Chaldee paraphrases are later than 
the Christian era, because not wanted until then. 
2. But it has been saM that there are still in existence the 
T^^aris or Chaldee paraphrases which were read at the 
same time with the Hebrew text, that the people who had 
forgotten the Hebrew, might understand the meaning of 
their sacred books. This assertion may be met with evid- 
ence still more conclusive than the former. In the Appendix 
to this work will be found a list of all the Targums that 
are known ever to have existed, and all of them except 
one, are admitted to have been written long since the time 
of Christ. Even the earliest, in favour of which a kind of 
reservation may be made, is thought by Professor Eichhorn 
to have been written in the second century of the Chris- 
tian era. It is clear, then, that none of these Targums 
could have been read, concurrently with the Hebrew 
Text, 500 years before they were written. No mention is 
made of them by Jerome, who lived in the 4th century 



204 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

after Christ, or by any other of the Christian Fathers of 
the Church. Most of them are loose paraphrases, which 
convey an imperfect idea of the original, and contain tales 
taken out of the Talmud, a well known collection of legends 
and falsehoods, written hundreds of years after the date of 
the Hebrew Canon. 

The Targums were certainly written many years after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Israelites, expelled 
from their country, had forgotten the Hebrew language, 
but still managed to maintain the appearance of a school 
of learning among the inhabitants of Syria and Babylonia, 
where they were principally scattered, and where they 
naturally forgot the Hebrew and learnt the Chaldee or 
Syriac language spoken in those countries. We shall see 
that the same inference may be obtained with equal clear- 
ness from the case of the vowel-points which shall now be 
considered. 

3. Vowel-points and accents modern — the want of them not 
felt until after the times of Christ — i. e. the Hebrezv 
zvas still a living language at the beginning 
of the Christian era. 

In the mature state of an alphabetic language, such as 
now exists in every civilized part of the world, except 
China, and the countries immediately adjoining to it, we 
find two classes of written characters, grammatically de- 
signated as vowels and consonants. Vowels are generally 
defined to be such letters as can be sounded by themselves, 
whereas consonants can only be sounded with the help of 
vowels. Notwithstanding this apparent superiority of 
vowels over consonants, yet there can be no doubt that 
consonants have preceded vowels, in the first formation of 
every language : and for good reasons. The vowels, gene- 
rally considered to be five in number, express sounds which 
hardly can be called articulate, but are rather similar to 



21.] VOWEL POINTS MODERN. 205 

the utterances of irrational animals : they are, in fact, a 
mere expiration of the breath, modified by the various 
shape of the lips and tongue. The consonants, however, 
b, k, 1, m, &c. though requiring the aid of a vowel sound, 
give that wonderful distinctness and variety to human 
language, which forms the predominant advantage of 
our species over the brute creation. 

In illustrating the gradual progress of the Literary art 
from the first rudiment to the present perfection of alpha- 
betic writing, which will form the subject of a future 
chapter, I have placed the Hebrew as the first approach 
to a phonetic system, in distinction to the older idea- 
graphic mode. That it is properly placed in this inter- 
mediate position arises from that peculiarity of forma- 
tion which gave to it consonants but not vowels. It is 
true that the Hebrew now no longer retains this singu- 
larity, for the vowel-points, as they are termed, render it 
capable of expressing every vowel sound as perfectly as 
any modern language. This, however, according to the 
best authorities, was not at first the case. 

Originally, says Professor Stuart, [p. 17.] the Hebrew alphabet con- 
sisted only of consonants. Some learned men have maintained the con- 
trary/and averred that NV were originally designed to be vowels. But 
the fact, that these letters constitute essential parts of the tr'diteral roots 
Hi Hebrew, and that they are susceptible of forming syllables by union 
with every sort of vowel sound, proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, 
that they are essentially consonants. 

That a language should possess no characters to desig- 
nate vowel-sounds, would certainly, at first sight, seem to 
present a great impediment to its free use ; but this diffi- 
culty was little felt by the Hebrews themselves, who learnt 
to speak their language whilst they were children, for 
probably, very few persons, from the scarcity of books in 
those days, learnt to read and write at all. Even 
foreigners, learning the language mostly by the ear, would 



206 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [cHAP. 

care very little in what manner the words were expressed 
on paper ; and native Hebrews, who began to learn the 
art of reading, would easily supply the vowel-sounds from 
their former perfect knowledge of the language. An 
illustration of this may be drawn from the English tongue, 
in which the vowel sounds are, indeed, expressed by certain 
characters, but so loosely that in some cases the latter 
serve rather to mislead than to guide, and to a foreigner 
are, remarkably often, the source of error. Thus the 
words, alive, give, and river furnish three different modes 
of pronouncing the letter i, and a foreigner would probably 
find it not more difficult to pronounce those words, if they 
were written without any vowels at all, thus alv, gv, rvr. 

The account which Professor Lee gives of the introduc- 
tion of the vowel-points into the Hebrew is supported by 
the opinion of most philologists who have written on this 
subject. In his Hebrew grammar, Art. 39, page 15, he 
writes thus : 

When the Hebrew and Syriac tongues were vernacular, the vowels 
would only be wanted in words which would otherwise be ambiguous ; 
and we find in the old Syriac Estraugelo manuscripts, that these vowel 
marks are mostly added, when this would be the case. Thus a parti- 
ciple present has almost invariably a point placed over the first radical 
letter, directing the first consonant to be pronounced with an o; the 
preterite, in like manner, has a single point under one of its radicals, 
mostly the second, directing that consonant to be pronounced with an a. 
The same is observed in other words, which have the same consonants 
with each other, but which ought to be pronounced with different 
vowels. This is sufficient, even now, to guard against any ambiguity 
which might arise in reading the Syriac text. In most of the Arabic 
manuscripts, if we except the Koran, a few vowels only are added for a 
similar purpose : which has also been done by some of the best editors 
of Arabic books in modern times. In these cases, no one will object, 
that every danger of ambiguity is sufficiently removed ; and it may hence 
be inferred, that a similar practice would be quite sufficient, so long 
as the Hebrew language continued to be generally spoken. Wbeh, 



24.] VOWEL-POINTS MODERN. 207 

however, it became a dead language, and the Jews, dispersed as they 
were, into different nations of the earth, would naturally forget the true 
pronunciation of the sacred text, no less than its meaning in many impor- 
tant passages, it became almost necessary that every word should be 
fully pointed, so as to leave no doubt on the mind, of the reader, as far, 
at least, as such a system of punctuation would go. For this purpose, 
additional vowel-marks were added, and some ones invented. To Avhich 
also a system of accents seems to have been added, which, taken in the 
aggregate, composes the system of Hebrew orthography as we now 
have it. At what exact period this began to take place, it is impossible 
to say ; there is, however, good reason for believing, that it must have 
been after the times of Jerome, as he makes no mention whatever of it. 
That it was completed later than the twelfth century is scarcely 
possible, as. the names of most of the vowels and accents are found in 
the Rabbins of that period. The school of Tiberias, and about the 
period A. D. 500, has generally been fixed upon as the place and time 
of their invention ; and it is not improbable that they were there and 
then first partially introduced, and afterwards augmented to the number 
which we now have. 

As these remarks of Professor Lee bear with great force 
on an inference which will presently be drawn from them, 
it will be desirable first to confirm them by adducing the 
testimony of Professor Stewart : in whose Hebrew grammar, 
page 17, we find the following : 

When the diacritical signs, which distinguish the later alphabet and 
increase the number of letters, together with all the vowel-points and 
accents, were first introduced, no historical documents satisfactorily 
shew. But it is now generally agreed, that the introduction was a 
gradual one; and that, however early some few particular things in the 
general system may have been commenced, yet the whole system of 
diacritical signs, vowel-points, and accents, was not completed, so as to 
exist in its present form, until several centuries after the birth of Christ; 
pretty certainly not until after the fifth century. In regard to reading 
MSS. destitute of all this system of helps, there is no serious difficulty , 
at least none to any one who well understands the language. The same 
thing is habitually done, at the present day, by the Arabians, the 
Persians, and the Syrians, in their respective tongues; and in Hebrew 



208 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

by the Jewish Rabbies, and all the learned in the Shemitish languages. 

Thus, then, it appears, from the concurrent evidence of 
these two learned Hebrew scholars, that the language of 
the Israelitish people neither had nor required characters 
to denote the vowel sounds, whilst it continued to be a 
vernacular or living language, but that, when the Hebrew 
was no longer a spoken or living language, the vowel-points 
were introduced for the sake of guiding the pronunciation. 
But this did not take place until after the Christian era.* 
It certainly follows, as a necessary deduction from these 
premises, that the Hebrew language was a living language 
at the beginning of the Christian era, and if we turn 
to the New Testament, we shall find, not by supposition 
or mere inference, but by the pointed evidence of fact, 
that such undoubtedly was the case. 

This point is of sufficient importance to form a chapter 
by itself. 



* The reader will find, in the Appendix, a long account of the vowel-points, 
extracted from Dr Prideaux's Connection of Sacred and Profane History. 



25.] HEBREW NOT DISUSED. 209 



CHAPTER 25. 



TtfAT THE JeWTSH NATION" SPOKE HEBREW AS LATE AS THE TIME OF 

Christ. — proved 2ndly from tjie New Testament. 



It is mucli to be regretted for many reasons, and those not 
merely of a literary nature, that our knowledge of the Jew- 
ish history at the time in which Christ lived, is extremely 
scanty and imperfect. The reduction of all the known 
world into one immense empire checked that free growth 
of the intellect which is sure to arise in smaller states, where 
institutions of freedom are developped. A large empire is 
liable to stagnate, as an unwieldy animal, whatever may be 
its species, is unable to move with that agility which more 
limited dimensions would have allowed. The most brilli- 
ant actions of our species have arisen from the clash of 
contending principles, and the exertions which competing 
interests create. But those who govern large empires love 
repose rather than competition — they restrain enterprise 
and digaify languor with the name of order — solitudinem 
faciunt, pacem appellant. From the moment that the em- 
perors of Rome had firmly fixed themselves in their seats 
of despotism, every manly sentiment began to disappear 
from the face of the earth, and for five hundred years 
hardly one writer arose, whose works can be put into 
competition with those which the golden age of Greece 
and Rome had produced. 

The Jews, at this moment, were certainly not behind 
the rest of the world in a desire to maintain their nation- 
ality and freedom. They were the same turbulent people 
as ever, and by no means submitted readily to the Roman 
domination. If their subjection had been deferred a few 

27 



210 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP 

years later, so that Josephus, the only Jewish writer who 
has come into close contact with the literature of Greece 
and Rome, might have signalised his talents in the service 
of his own country, and in his own language, we should 
not have had to lament the want of Hebrew books which 
now drives us to the New Testament for all our informa- 
tion concerning the language of the Jews at this period of 
their commonwealth. 

It has been already observed that some writers have 
referred the oldest of the Targums to the earliest period 
of the Christian era. But this opinion is rejected by others, 
and it is not safe to build upon a basis of doubtful stability. 
We are therefore obliged to recur to the New Testament 
for whatever indications it may furnish that the Jews still 
spoke the language in which the books of the Old Testa- 
ment were composed, and which was as much entitled 
to be called the Hebrew then, as it was in the days of 
David, Daniel, or Malachi. 

In making these observations I claim due allowance for 
the changes, which lapse of time, even without external 
causes, will invariably produce in the most stable language 
that ever has been spoken. But this allowance may be 
conceded without prejudice to either side of the question : 
for those who entertain a different view of the matter 
argue that the change of language from Hebrew to Chaldee 
was effected, comparatively speaking, instantaneously — as 
the mathematicians call it, per saltum — in consequence of 
that great national calamity, the Babylonish captivity. 
Let us then see what evidence the New Testament will 
yield to clear up this disputed part of history. 

1. The Hebrew is expressly mentioned in the New Testa- 
ment as being still the language of the people. 

This is evident from the following texts : 

John v_, 2. .Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep-market a pool, 



25.] HEBREW NOT DISUSED. 211 

which is called in the Ilelrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 
Joun xix, 17. And he, bearing his cross, went forth into a place 
called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha. 

If the Hebrew tongue bad become obsolete, why did the 
writer of this gospel explain the names of these places in 
that language ? It is not customary with those who 
write books for popular use in England to explain foreign 
or other names by adding their signification in the Anglo- 
Saxon language, which was spoken 800 years ago, but in 
the English language, which is still spoken in England. 

The inference which these texts furnish is confirmed by 
the inscription placed over the cross. This is mentioned 
by all the four evangelists ; but only Luke and John tell 
us the languages in which it was written : 

Luke xxiii, 38. And a superscription also was written over him in 
letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This is the King op 
the Jews. 

John xix, 19. And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. 
And the writing was Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews. 
This title then read many of the Jews ; for the place where Jesus was 
crucified was nigh to the city : and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, 
and Latin. 

It may be asked, with reason, why the title should be 
inscribed in three languages ? The answer is ready : it was 
inscribed in Latin, because Pilate, who was a Roman, his 
court and his guards, spoke Latin, the language of the 
government ; in Greek, which was the language of litera- 
ture, of the better classes, and perhaps of a large part of 
the Roman army ; and in Hebrew, because that was the 
language of the natives. No other explanation is admis- 
sible : for it is absurd to suppose that an inscription,, 
which it was of course intended that all should read and. 
understand, would be written in an obsolete dialect, which; 
no one but the priests could understand. In fact we find" 
that it was not written in an obsolete language, for it is said 



212 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

that " this title read many of the Jews/' and there can be 
no doubt that they understood it with as much ease as the 
citizens of London understand the proclamations which are 
sometimes fixed by the agents of the government upon the 
walls of the Mansion house. 

2. Hebrew words are found in the New Testament. 

The following are examples of words and sentences 
which have been handed down in the New Testament, as 
used by Christ and others in the course of their daily and 
familiar conversation : 

Mark iii, 17. And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother 
of James ; and he suruamed them Boanerges, which is The sons of 
thunder. • 

" This word, (says Dr Whitby, in the Family Bible) is 
compounded of two Hebrew words explained in the text." 
If so, the Hebrew language must still have been the lan- 
guage of the inhabitants of Judaea. 

Matt, xxi, 9. And the multitudes that went before, and that followed 
cried, saying " Hosanna to the son of David : blessed is he that cometh 
in the name of the Lord : Hosanna in the highest ! M 

"The w T ord Hosanna, [says Bishop Pearce, in the Family 
Bible,] is an abbreviation of two Hebrew words, which 
signify "save now :" they are found at Ps. cxviii, 25, and 
were a customary acclamation of the common people on 
solemn occasions." 

Mark xiv, 36. And he [Jesus] said, " Abba, father, all things are 
possible unto thee ; take awav this cup from me : nevertheless not what 
T will, but what thou wilt." 

"Abba is the Chaldee for father"* says Dr Lighffoot in 
the note on this verse, in the Family Bible. But is it not 
the Hebrew, also, for the same word ? Abba is plainly the 
Greek form of the Hebrew n^ ab, which denotes father. 



25.] HEBREW SPOKEN IN TIME OF CHRIST. 21 



o 



Mark v, 41. And he [Jesus] took the damsel by the hand, and said 
unto her, "Talitha cumi," which is, being interpreted, "Damsel, I say 
unto thee, arise/' 

Acts i, 19. Insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue 
Aceldama. 

These words, Talitha cumi, and Aceldama, are also 
Hebrew, with little dialectic variation the same as they 
would have been, if they occurred in the Pentateuch, or 
the books of Joshua and Judges. 

John i, 41. He first fitideth his own brother Simon, and saith unto 
him, " We have found, the Messias," which is, being interpreted, the 
Christ. 

i, 42. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld 

him, he said "Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called 
Cephas," which is by interpretation A stone. 

Mark iii, 22. And the scribes, which came down from Jerusalem, 
said, "He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth 
he out devils." 

Compare with this the following, from the gospel 
of St Matthew ; 

Matt, xii, 24. But when the Pharisees heard, it, they said, "This 
fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the priuce of 
the devils." 

For an explanation of the name Beelzebub, w T e are refer- 
red, by the editors of the Family Bible, to the notes on 
II Kings i, 1 — 2, where the name Baalzebub occurs. The 
text of that passage runs thus : 

Then Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab. And. 
Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in 
Samaria, and was sick : and he sent messengers, and said, unto them, 
" Go, enquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover 
of this disease." 

The note to this passage tells us that 

The word "Baal-zebub signifies the " god of flies," but, how this idol 
came to obtain that name, it is not so easy a matter to discover. 



214 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [cHAP. 

Several are of opinion that this god was called Baal-semin, the Lord of 
Heaven, bat that the Jews by way of contempt, gave it the. name of 
Baal-zebub, or the lord of a fly, a god that was nothing worth, fcc." 

The opinion is puerile, and the commentator who quotes 
it, Dr Stackhouse, afterwards suggests that the name may 
have been given to the deity who protected the people 
from the flies, which molest the Asiatics as much as the 
mosquitoes in the West Indies. 

But whatever may have been the origin of the name, it 
appears to have been a Hebrew name, in use before the 
Babylonish captivity, and still in use in the time of Christ. 

John i, 38. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith 
unto them, " What seek ye ?" They said unto him Rabbi (which is to say, 
being interpreted, Master) where dwellest thou ? 

xx, 16. Jesus saith unto her "Mary." She turned herself, and 

saith unto him Rabboni, which is to say Master. 

I copy the following note on this verse from Dr Car- 
penter's Apostolical Harmony of the Gospels, p. 194, second 
edition 8vo Lond. 1838. 

Rabboni My teacher (or Master). The received text has 'Pa/BSovt, which 
is the Syro-Chaldaic form of the pure Hebrew 'Pafifii,, My Teacher, (or 
Master). The most approved reading is ( Pa/3/3ovvi, which represents the 
Galihean pronunciation of ( Pa/3/3ovL. The Rabbinical writings say that 
Rabboni is more dignified than Ralbi, and this than Rab> which simply 
signifies Master or Teacher. See Schleusner. 

Matt, xxvii, 46. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with aloud 
voise, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ? that is to say, My God, my 
God, why hast thou forsaken me ? 

Some of them that stood there when they heard that, said, "This man 
calleth for Elias." 

The account is very similar in the gospel according to 
St Mark ; 

Mark xv, 34. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, 
saying Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani ? which is, being interpreted, My 
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? 

Amd some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, " Behold, 
he calleth Elias." 



25.] HEBREW SPOKEN IN TIME OF CHRIST. 215 

Let us hear Dr Lightfoot's interpretation of these texts : 

St Matthew gives the words Eli, Eli, in the Hebrew, exactly the 
same as they occur at Ps. xxii, 1 . St Mark gives them according to the 
Syro- Glial daic dialect ; which was in common use at the time of our 
Saviour. 

From which it appears that the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, as 
Dr Lightf oot terms it, was remarkably similar to the Hebrew 
if it differed from it no more than by the addition of the 
letter o to the sentence " Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani." But 
the truth is, we know nothing of the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, 
or of any other dialect than the Hebrew, as spoken at 
Jerusalem about the period of time when our Saviour was 
crucified. It is more reasonable to suppose that Eloi, and 
Eli are merely the forms by which two different translators 
have rendered the same word from Hebrew into Greek ; 
and this supposition is strengthened by the usage of the 
modern Greeks, who pronounce Eli and Eloi in the same 
manner, Ailee. But the word, as it occurs in the Psalm of 
David, is Eli : does Dr Lightfoot imply that Christ altered 
the word into another and a more corrupt dialect ? He 
could not have used both forms : which then did he use ? 
If Eloi, why has St Matthew put Eli into his mouth ? if 
however Eli is the word which he ejaculated, why has he 
been made to use the other form Eloi in the gospel accord- 
ing to St Mark? No other solution seems so reasonable as 
to ascribe,the discrepancy to the peculiarities of different 
translators. 

But it is necessary to notice another observation which 
has been made on these texts, resting on no better foun- 
dation than the former. Some of those who stood by 
thought that Christ called for Elias. This, according to 
the views of some commentators, is supposed to prove 
that the Hebrew was no longer spoken in Jerusalem at 
this time ; for otherwise, say they, every body who stood 



216 THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

by would have understood the meaning of his words. This 
however would not necessarily be the case ; for a man in 
the last agonies of death would not be likely to speak with 
sufficient distinctness to make his words intelligible, parti- 
cularly to the lower classes, who alone are in the habit of 
attending executions. Nor is it likely that a quotation 
from the Psalms would be very intelligible to an ignorant 
multitude who knew little about the Bible in general, and 
perhaps nothing at all about the Psalms of David. The 
immense labour of writing out books with the pen in those 
days leaves us little grounds for believing that the copies 
of the Hebrew bible were then either numerous or exten- 
sively circulated. 

3. Proper names of persons and places are of the same 

character as those which occur in the Old 

Testament. 

Thus we have Zechariah the father of John, Joseph the 
reputed father of Christ, Simeon and Anna, who received 
Christ, when he was presented in the temple, Jonah, Bar- 
abbas, Bar-Jona, Bar-timseus (with a Latin termination), 
Zebedee, Eli, occurring in one genealogy as the grandfather 
of Christ, and Jacob who occurs in the other genealogy : 
whilst the name of Jesus himself, is only a Greek form of 
Joshua, and is therefore identical with that of the Greek 
captain who lived fifteen hundred years before. > 

Again, we have names of places in the purest Hebrew, 
always remembering that they come to us through the 
medium of a Greek translation. Such are Golgotha, Beth- 
esda, Bethsaida, Bethlehem, and many others compounded 
of that remarkable word Beth, describing the idea of house, 
locality or residence, which is as characteristic of the He- 
brew nation, as the dune marks the Celts all over the west 
of Europe, as the ville denotes a Norman origin, and as 



25.] HEBREW SPOKEN~IN TIME OF CHRIST.' 217 

as ham or bourne denotes Anglo-Saxon etymology in 
England. 

The names of places would not, it is true, furnish so 
strong an argument in every case, because the same name 
may remain in use for many centuries, provided that the 
same race of people inhabit the spot which bears it. But 
it is said that the the whole of the Holy Land underwent 
a more violent change of masters than countries in general 
are fated to undergo. If so, the names would have been 
changed, as has happened in other similar cases. But 
the names in the Old Testament and in the New belong to 
the same language, which must therefore have been the 
same from the period of the Babylonish captivity down to 
the beginning of the Christian era. 

4. Christ himself reads from the book of the Old 
Testament. 

This appears from the gospel according to St Luke, 
ch. iv, 16 — 17. 

And lie came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up ; and as 
his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath dav, and 
stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of 
the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the 
place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because 
he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor etc. 

It is said by some of the commentators that it was cus- 
tomary in Judea to read the original text of the Hebrew 
Bible verse by verse, alternately with the Targum or Chal- 
dee paraphrase. If this was the case, why is no mention 
made of it in the passage before us ? No notice whatever 
is taken of such a remarkable custom. There was evident- 
ly no such custom, or the writers of the four gospels 
would have related it. It is unlikely that the scribes and 
Pharisees would have let slip such favorable opportunities 



to " entangle him in his talk." 



2S 



218 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

But we have not the slightest indication of any discussion 
having arisen with regard to the interpretation of Hebrew 
words and sentences. It is more probable, therefore, that 
both Christ himself, and the people, as well as the Scribes 
and Pharisees, still spoke Hebrew, and consequently under- 
stood the language in which their scriptures were originally 
written. 



CHAPTER 26. 

Successive changes in the religion of the Hebrews result- 
ing FROM THEIR CONTACT WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 

Peculiarities of speech have a sensible influence on the 
manners and customs of nations : religion is, perhaps, of 
less weight than language in its effects on national charac- 
ter. Sill it must not be neglected, in an enquiry into 
either the social or intellectual state of the Hebrew people, 
and may contribute something to illustrate the subject 
now before us. 

It is a trite but somewhat indistinct observation, repeated 



26.] CHANGE OF RELIGION. 219 

again and again by all the commentators on the Old 
Testament, that the Israelites were prone to fall aside from 
their allegiance to the Lord God. It is certainly remark- 
able that those wayward people could, in defiance of the 
Almighty, and almost in his very presence, fall into religious 
absurdities in no degree surpassing the lowest idolatries of 
the most heathen nations. But these excesses were not 
without the connection of cause and effect, which might 
be discovered, if we could only trace it, in all the actions, 
however apparently absurd, both of individuals and of 
nations. We observe, throughout the Old Testament, in 
the religious observances of the Hebrews, evident marks 
of the external circumstances to which they were exposed, 
I use the name Hebrews, as more extensive than Israelites: 
Abraham, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob were Hebrews, but 
Israelite is a term applied to the posterity of Jacob alone. 

The Old Testament, in various places, plainly indicates 
that the religion of Abraham, and of the nation which de- 
scended from him, was not in every particular the same. 
Setting aside those points in which they agreed, let us 
notice those in which they differed, and we shall find these 
are far from trivial, though not greater than might be anti- 
cipated in a nation exposed to many extraordinary vicissi- 
tudes running through so long a space of time. 

The religious belief of Abraham was extremely simple. 
He worshipped one Almighty Being, the Lord God, Jehovah 
Elbhim, to whom he looked for the fulfilment of hopes 
long held out to himself and his posterity. To the 
worship of God was attached the practise of expiatory 
sacrifice, common, so it appears, to all the Canaanitish 
nations ; and the offering of Isaac bears a fearful likeness 
to the devotional enthusiasm which prompted the people 
of that country to give up their dearest pledges in token 
of submission to the Divine will. Another feature which 
may be detected in the religious belief of the patriarchs, 



220 HEBREW SCPIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is that to which the name of 
Anthropomorphism, man-shape, has been given. The 
opinion which represents God in the form of a man, is 
exceedingly liable to arise in the minds of beings endued 
with such narrow powers of comprehension, and yet so 
aspiring to that which is above us, as we are. The belief 
is not universal ; some nations are notorious for haying wor- 
shipped deities under the form of the most degrading 
species of the brute creation : but if we could investigate 
the origin of these revolting creeds, some extenuating 
circumstances might possibly be discovered, which would 
render even these cases no longer exceptions, but fresh 
instances, or at least illustrations, of the general rule. 

The whole of the Grecian and Pvoman mythology des- 
cribes a host of deities, whose human forms flattered the 
vanity of their votaries, even whilst the intellect was 
humbled by the rites which accompanied their worship. 
The mind of man, as it surveys the material universe 
around, seeks in vain for an agency superior to its own 
organization : it is conscious of powers to which every 
thing within its range is inferior, and by an easy and 
natural extension of these powers, man, in his thoughts, 
soon arrives at the idea of a God. Even the negative of 
man's positive qualities suggest new faculties by which a 
species of omnipotence might be gained. The power of 
sight suggests the idea of invisibleness : space leads the 
mind to reflect on infinity; and whilst the principle of 
gravity presses us down to the earth with the greatest force, 
we aspire in our imaginations to that freedom from the 
trammels of matter which would carry us without weight, 
and buoyant in spirit, above the starry spheres. As a 
corollary to this theorem, man not only aspires to God's 
heavenly seat, but dares to bring down God to the level of 
himself. The Lord God walked in the garden in the cool 
of the day, when he would enquire into the particulars of 



26.] CHANGE OF RELIGION. 221 

Adam's transgression. He was repeatedly seen by Abra- 
ham, Isaac, and Jacob — so was the report current among 
their posterity — and the last of these patriarchs is 
represented as having personally wrestled with the Lord. 

From the nature of their Deity, and what may be called 
the essentials of the patriarchal religion, we naturally turn 
to the subordinate but still important particulars which 
characterised their worship. These are 1. the persons, whose 
duty it was to perform their rites and ceremonies : and 2. 
the places in which those ceremonies were performed. As 
regards the ministers of religion, we do not find that any 
existed among the Hebrews, before the sojourn in Egypt, 
and this fact cannot but be looked upon as of the utmost 
importance to a clear understanding of the Israelitish Hist- 
ory and polity. There is no mention of priests or ministers 
of religion even from the creation of the world down to the 
time of Moses and Aaron — that is to say, among the Heb- 
rews ; for in Canaan Melchisedec was the " priest of the most 
high God, * " and in Egypt we know that the priestly office 
existed in the time of Joseph, who is related to have mar- 
ried the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. The duties, 
which in later days devolved upon the priests, were, in the 
time of Abraham, performed by the patriarch himself. Each 
separate society consisted, in those days, of a single clan 
or family, who knew no other superior than the head of the 
clan, whose word was their law, no doubt modified by cus- 
tom, into which the ideas of justice and equity more or less 
entered, according to the peculiar circumstances of the clan. 
The head of this family was also their priest, and discharged 
for them the few religious offices which their simple theology 
comprised ; and this he did fromt he light of nature, rather 
than from any code of laws and canons like those which 

* Gen. xiv, 18. The meaning of this expression has not yet been satisfactorily 
discovered, or explained by any of the commentators. 



222 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

from the age of Moses have been continually growing and 
branching out in various directions, until they have .aused 
the utmost perplexity and embarrassment to mankind. 

The places, in which the religious rites of the Hebrew 
patriarchs were performed, were generally those w hich the 
majesty of Nature rather than the graces of architectural 
science, pointed out : and these were afterwards indicated 
by rude but lasting monuments, some of which still survive, 
not to tell us any history of the past, but only that they 
had a history, which we now shall never be able to unfold. 

The earliest monuments of all nations seem to be those 
which belong to the rites and ceremonies of religion. Pil- 
lars, sometimes standing singly, sometimes formed into 
enclosures, as at Stonehenge, Avebury, the temples of 
Karnac, and others in Egypt, and almost every where in 
the ancient world, attest a similarity of construction, for 
which no other use can be imagined than the worship of 
the Supreme Being, which is so natural to the human breast. 
Of these massive remains, the oldest model is probably the 
monolith, as it is termed, because it consisted of a single 
stone ; though the term is not applicable, when the object 
was a stately tree, of which the stone pillar was, perhaps, 
an imitation. Though the Hebrew patriarchs " worshipped 
not in temples made with hands," yet they generally 
selected some spot shaded by the foliage and marked by 
the upward-pointing trunk, of some stately tree. 

When Jacob hides the teraphim, the idols of his wife, he selects, as 
a sacred place, ' under the oak by Shechem.' Deborah, Rebecca's foster- 
mother, was buried with pious carefulness c beneath the stones of Bethel, 
under an oak, and the name of it was called the oak of weeping/ So 
also Saul and his sons were interred ' under the oak in Jabesh : ' 
Gideon's angel 1 came and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah; ] the 
' erring man of God ' rests under an oak ; as if these were in the nature 
of consecrated trees, religious stations. In Joshua xxiv, 26, we read 
that the great successor of Moses ' took a great stone and set it up 



26.] CHANGE OF RELIGION. 223 

there, under an oak, which was by the sanctuary of the Lord • ' and 
this selection of oaks and setting up of monolithic pillars might be 
illustrated by numerous other examples.* 

But the inhabitants of Canaan had already, in the time 
of Abraham, begun to improve on the original idea of the 
single tree, — standing perhaps in the centre of a surround- 
ing plain. They already were used to plant whole groves 
of trees in honour of the Deity, and Abraham apparently 
imitates them in this particular; for w 7 e read in the 21st 
chapter of Genesis, v. 23, that he 

planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the 
Lord, the everlasting God. 

This grove, says Bishop Patrick, was built 

For a solemn and retired place wherein to worship God. Hence, 
some think, the custom of planting groves was derived into all the Gen- 
tile world; viho so profaned them by images and filthiness, and sacri- 
ces to demons, that God commanded them, by the law of Moses, to be 
cut down. 

This is probable, for it does not appear that the Lord 
God objected to the groves themselves, but only to their 
being consecrated to other gods than himself. But it may 
be doubted that this was the first instance of a grove being 
planted, or that the nations of Canaan learnt this usage 
from a single stranger, sojourning among them. It is far 
more likely that Abraham planted the grove, in honour of 
Jehovah, on the same principle of solemnity and mysterious 
awe — which dense foliage conveys — as influenced the other 
people of Canaan, each to honour his own gods, in the 
same maimer. 

High places, also, we find, were chosen by the nations of 
Canaan, as peculiarly fitting for the worship of their gods. 
To ascribe idolatry universally to those who frequented 

* Farley Heath, by M. F. Tupper esq. page 59. 



22 i THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

the summits of lofty hills as sites of religious worship, 
would be to draw a premature and unjust conclusion from 
such premises. Nature, majestic in all her works, is more 
majestic still, viewed from the top of the heaven-pointed 
hill ; the spirits expand with the degree of elevation which 
is attained, earth's toils and the cares which close in the 
valley, are for the moment left behind, and the soul feels 
or fancies that it is nearer than before to the Great Being 
from whom it is derived. Not until the soul becomes sunk 
in superstition, and reason, which is our first guide to truth, 
overlaid with the inhuman tenets of a barbarous ritual, v.o: 
ur.til the mountain air has been polluted by the unhallowed 
offering of the child to demons by his besotted parents, 
and other such profane doings desecrated the spot, can any 
sound objection be made to " High Places," which the patri- 
archs selected whereon to devote themselves to the wor- 
ship and service of their Maker. 

The sojourn in Egypt gave a new character to the faith 
of the tribes of Israel. They went down into that land 
holding a species of Deism, purer than any other form (as 
far as we can gather from history) that ever has existed 
among men. But thev came out of Eccvpt 130 years 
later,* greatly altered in this particular : as- they speedily 
evinced by their conduct, hardly one month after they 
had escaped across the Red Sea. The golden calf furnishes 
a striking instance of the effect which their residence in 
Egypt had produced ; the worship of the bull-god Apis — 
an Egyptian superstition — is too well known to be here 
repeated ; it is sufficient to remark that the golden calf 
was the natural resource of a degraded nation of slaves, 
who finding themselves, as they supposed, without a god 
to protect them, speedily constructed such an one as they 



lourn in 



* I abandon, ;is wholly untenable, the suppositon that the Israelitish soj< 
Ejfvpt mu t b" ^educed to 215 years. S,e page 1 18 - lo2, where this 
sed. 



26.] THE BRAZEN SERPENT. 225 

had seen worshipped by their former masters the Egyptians. 
And again,, when the people were suffering from the bite 
of the fiery serpents, it is related that Moses erected a 
brazen serpent, and 

put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that, if a serpent had bitten 
any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass he lived. Numb, xxi, 9. 

The reason why God commanded Moses to adopt this 
course has not been recorded : but the fact would probably 
be susceptible of a satisfactory explanation, if we were 
acquainted more fully with the serpent-worship which 
existed, among the ancient people of Egypt. In the 
absence of certain information, it may be supposed that 
the Israelites had been taught to hold serpents in great 
respect whilst they were in Egypt, and that Moses availed 
himself of their superstition to bend them the better to his 
will. At all events, the Popes, in more modern times, 
have not scrupled to adopt many particulars of the ancient 
heathen ritual, as a mode of converting the nations of 
Europe to the Christian faith. 

A third feature, common to both the Egyptian and the 
Israelitish religion was the ceremony relating to the scape- 
goat. The Israelitish form of this ceremony is related in 
Leviticus xv, 7 — 10 : 

And lie [Aaron] shall take the two goats, and present them before 
the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and Aaron 
shall cast lots npon the two goats ; one lot for the Lord, and the other 
lot for the scape-goat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the 
Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sin-offering. But the goat, on which 
the lot fell to be the scape-goat, shall be presented alive before the 
Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scape- 
goat into the wilderness. 

The Egyptians had a similar custom, as we learn from 

Herodotus, Book ii, ch. 39, who relates it in these words: 

29 



226 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

After they have killed the goat, they cut off its head, but they flay 
the animal's body, after which, having pronounced many imprecations 
on the head, those who have a market and Grecian merchants dwelling 
among them, carry it thither and sell it to them ; but those who have 
no Grecian residents to sell it to, throw the head into the fire, pronoun- 
cing over it the following imprecations, " If any evil is about to befall 
either those that now sacrifice, or Egypt in general, may it be averted 
on this head ! " 

The two customs, though not perfectly the same, are so 
far similar that the one appears to have been derived from 
the other. The import of both is certainly the same : for 
in both, the goat is made use of as a substitute, to draw away 
calamity from the party sacrificing, in the one case being 
sent into the wilderness, and in the other consumed 
by fire. 

The next particular, in which the Egyptians and Israel- 
ites bore a resemblance to one another, is the remarkable 
rite of circumcision. Its practise was not confined to these 
two nations, but was found, in the age of Herodotus, among 
the inhabitants of Colchis. In modern times it is known 
as the distinguishing mark of the Mahometans, and prevails 
in all those countries which have embraced their faith. It 
is difficult to believe that the Egyptians adopted this rite 
from their own slaves the Israelites ; and it is equally 
hazardous to say that the Israelites borrowed it from the 
Egyptians ; for it was first adopted by Abraham, at the 
command of God : and yet, as Abraham is known to have 
passed some time in Egypt, the question seems still to be 
admissible, how far he may have adopted it by imitation 
from the people, among whom he sojourned. 

These four points of similarity between the Egyptian 
and Israelitish modes of worship are all that I propose to 
bring forwards, but a treatise might be written on the 
subject ; founded in part on the account which Herodotus 
gives of the Egyptian sacred rites, and partly drawn from 



26.] ISRAELITES IN EGYPT. 227 

other sources. The view which I have here taken, has, it 
appears, forced itself upon the mind of a living writer, Mr 
Sharp, who has lately published a History of Egypt, dis- 
playing great learning and research. The observations 
which here follow, taken from his work, are suitable to our 
present subject : 

How much the Jews were indebted to the Egyptians for their learning, 
philosophy, and letters, is one of the most interesting inquiries in 
ancient histt ry. Moses had been brought up iu the neighbourhood of 
Heiiopolis, the chief seat of Egyptian philosophy, and carefully educated 
iu all the learning of the Egyptians, under the tutorship, as tradition 
says, of Jannes and Jambres, while too many of the Israelites were given 
up to the idolatry and superstitious of the country. Hence many of 
the Egyptian customs, as seen by the historian Manetho, are clearly 
pointed at and forbidden by the laws of Moses, while others, which were 
free from blame, are even copied in the same laws; and much light may 
be thrown on the manners of each nation by comparing them together. 
The chief purpose for which the Jews were set apart from the other 
nations seems to have been to keep alive the great truth, that the 
Creator and Governor of the world is one — a trutli assailed by the 
superstitious in all ages ; and Moses proclaimed, that all the gods which 
the Egyptian priests wished the ignorant multitude to worship were 
false. The Egyptians worshipped the stars as emblems of the gods, the 
sun under the name of Rea, and the moon as Joh or Tsis ; but among 
the Jews, whoever worshipped any one of the heavenly bodies was to be 
stoned to death. The Egyptians worshipped statues of men, beasts, 
birds and fishes; but the Jews were forbidden to bow down before any 
carved image. The Egyptian priests kept their heads shaved; while 
the Jewish priest was forbidden to make himself bald, or even to cut the 
corner of his beard. The people of Lower Egypt marked their bodies 
with pricks, in honour of their .gods; but the Jews were forbidden to 
cut their flesh or make any mark upon it. The Egyptians buried food 
in the tombs with the bodies of their friends, and sent gifts of food to 
the temples for their use; but the Jews were forbidden to set apart any 
food for the dead. The Egyptians planted groves of trees within£the 
court-yard of their temples, as the Alexandrian Jews did in later times; 
but the laws of Moses forbade the Jews to plant any trees near the 
altar of the Lord. The sacred bull 4 pis was chosen by the priests of 



228 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Memphis for its black and white spots, and Mnevis, the sacred bull of 
Heliopolis, had nearly the same marks ; but the Jews, in preparing their 
water of purification, were ordered to kill a red heifer without a spot. 
History of Egypt, pp. 33 — 35. 

The return of the Israelites into the land of Canaan 
opens to our view a third period of their history, and a 
third state of their religion. The priests and Levites play 
a conspicuous part every where among them, deriving their 
institution from Moses, but, singularly enough, not prac- 
tising his precepts or preserving the purity of worship which 
he had taught them. 

It would extend this work indefinitely to enter here 
into a full examination of this subject. I shall therefore 
name only one circumstance which implies that the people, 
returning to the country of their ancestors, resumed at least 
one custom which had existed in the times of the patriarchs. 
This was the practise of having household gods, exempli- 
fied in the history of Micah, Judges chap, xvii, 4. 

And the n an Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and 
teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons who became his priest. 

This reminds us of the flight of Jacob from Padan-aram, 
when Rachel stole the images, (teraphim in the Hebrew) 
belonging to her father. 

Genesis xxxi, 19. And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel 
had stolen the images that were her father's. 

Laban pursues Jacob in his flight towards Canaan, and 
in his expostulation, when he comes up with him, he uses 
these words : 

And now, though thou wouldest be gone, because thou sore longedst 
after thy father's house ; yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods ? 

Bishop Patrick and Dr Stackhouse explain the teraphim 
as 

objects of worship or instruments of divination. It is supposed that 



26.] TERAPHIM. 229 

Rachel stole them ; either because, having still a tincture of superstition, 
she feared Laban should enquire of them which way Jacob was gone ; 
or because, having been brought off by Jacob from the false notions and 
bad customs of her country, she desired to convince her father of his 
superstition, by letting him see, that his gods (as lie called them) could 
not preserve themselves, much less be of any service to him : or because 
she intended to give herself some portion of his goods which she thought 
justly belonged to her, and of which he had deprived her. It is sup- 
posed the images were made of gold or silver, or some other valuable 
substance. 

Dr Lightfoot represents the teraphim in a different point 
of view : 

The teraphim were probably the pictures or statues of some of Rachel's 
ancestors, and taken by her for the preservation of their memory, when 
she was about never to see her country and father's house again. 

But it is in vain that the commentators essay to evade 
a fact which speaks in loud accents that idolatry was the 
religion of those times, not, possibly, primary idolatry, such 
as the statue of the Olympian Jove indicated among the 
Greeks, but an inferior species, by which even men, who 
recognize the power and majesty of the great God Almighty, 
as they are shewn in his magnificent works — the works of 
Nature — are yet prone to deal in inferior agencies, spirits, 
wizards, ghosts, charms, and amulets, — any thing, in short, 
which brings down the great idea of God to the low level of 
their own weak understandings. 

A striking contrast to this image-worship is presented by 
the same people, when they came back from Babylon — no 
more teraphim, or household deities— no thing more is said 
of a plurality of deities — the gods of the mountains and the 
gods of the plains merge into the omnipotence of the one 
God, surrounded by the angels, archangels, and the whole 
army of H eaven. Conspicuous, however, above all his satel- 
lites is the Almighty Jehovah ; his attributes are those, 
which, in the present day, are held in reverence by half the 



230 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

world, and his religion assumes that shape which we find 
impressed upon the Gospel-histories of the New Covenant. 

But this majestic scheme of an Almighty Creator and 
Preserver of the Universe surrounded by the Heavenly 
Host was contrasted, in the later theology of the Hebrews, 
with a corresponding picture of a rival agency, always 
engaged in counteracting the benevolent purposes of 
Jehovah. Satan was the name of this demon or hostile 
spirit ; and under his commands were a legion of evil 
spirits, ever abiding his bidding and ready to do his will. 
This particular phase of the religious belief of the Jews 
is not recognised in their history before the return from the 
Babylonish Captivity : an 1 as the religion of the Persians 
is known to have turned upon the same peculiarities, it is a 
reasonable inference that the Jews first acquired these 
views during the seventy years which the principal men of 
their nation passed among the Chaldean, Babylonian and 
Persian philosophers, who followed the doctrines of 
Zoroaster.* 

From the time that this new element entered into the 
religion of the Jews, a corresponding meaning is found 
attached to the word Satan, ]t0t£N which formerly signified 



* Hyde and Prideaux, working up the Persian legends and their own conjec- 
tures into a very agreeable story, represent Zoroaster as a contemporary of Daiius 
Hystaspes. But it is sufficient to observe, that the Creek writers, who lived 
almost in the age of Darius, agree in placing the sera of Zoroaster many hundred, 
or even thousand, 3 T ears before their own time. The judicious criticism of Mr Moyle 
perceived, and maintained against his uncle Dv Prideaux, the antiquity of the 
Persian prophet. See his work, vol. ii. Gibb. ch. viii, vol. i, p. 319. of the 12 
vol. 8vo edition. 

That ancient idiom [in which the Zendavesta was composed] was called the 
Zend. The language of the commentary, the Pehlvi, though much more modern, 
has ceased many ages ago to be a living tongue. This fact alone (if it is allowed 
as authentic) sufficiently warrants the antiquity of those writings, which d'An- 
quetil has brought into Europe, and translated into French. Gibb. ch. vi". vol. 
i, p. 319 of the 12 vol. 8vo edition. 



26.] SATAN. 231 

nothing more than an enemy, or adversary, but now began 
to be the designation of the power of evil. Used in this 
sense, for the Devil, the word Satan occurs in only four 
passages of the old Testament ; and even in one of these 
it is inaccurately so rendered in our English bible, for the 
word means nothing more than adversary in that verse 
also. The place where it is inaccurately rendered by the 
English word Satan, meaning the Devil, is in Psalm 
cix, verse 6 : 

Set thou a wicked man over him ; and let Satan stand at his 
right hand. 

Here there seems to be no necessity for understanding the 
word to have any other meaning than that of adversary, by 
which a very satisfactory sense for the passage is obtained. 

But the other passages, in which the word Satan is 
found in its new sense, occur in books which were undoubt- 
edly written after the return of the Jews from Babylon — 
written, i. e. wholly, and not compiled out of ancient 
originals, whose words have generally been preserved 
entire. They are the following : 

I Chron. xxvi, 1. And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked 
David to number Israel. 

Job i, 6. Now there was a clay when the sons of God came to present 
themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. And 
the Lord said unto Satan &c. &c. 

Zechaeiah hi, 1 — 2. And he shewed me Joshua the high priest 
standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right 
hand, to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, "The Lord 
rebuke thee &c." 

The books of Chronicles are universally admitted, as has 
been already often remarked in this work, to belong to the 
later period of the Jewish Commonwealth. Zechariah also 
is admitted to have written about the same time, and those 
who still blindly look upon the book of Job as a work of 
very remote antiquity, have to encounter and explain the 



232 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

difficulties occasioned by the Greek terms Pleiades, Orion, 
and others, therein occurring, which were not known to 
the Jews until after their intercourse with the Greeks. 

But the passage in Chronicles may be compared with 
the corresponding narrative in II Sam. xxiv, 1, where 
David's sin in numbering the people is described : 

And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he 
moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 

Here it is the anger of the Lord against Israel, which 
prompts David to commit an act that was disagreeable to 
God : but in Chronicles it is the enmity of the Devil or 
Evil Spirit, which impels the king to sin. The former 
account flowed naturally from the opinions which the 
ancient Israelites held concerning the anthropomorphism 
and, consequently, the human feelings of anger, friendship 
and revenge, which they ascribed to the Almighty. The 
latter narrative was written when the Jews had imbibed 
other notions of evil, which they were probably the more 
ready to adopt, because the character of the Deity was 
thereby relieved from the imputation of sometimes being 
the cause which impelled mankind to sin. The two 
antagonistic principles of the Persian or Chaldean theology 
easily caught the warm imaginations of the Jewish people, 
who did not perceive that the belief in a God of Evil 
narrowed the dominion of the God of Good, in the same 
proportion as it exalted his moral perfections. 

Another word, which furnishes aid to our present subject, 
is the word Nabi " prophet," which, as already hinted in 
page 139, was either a new word, acquired by the Jews at 
Babylon, or was afterwards used in an altered sense in 
consequence of the arts of astrology, prophecy and divina- 
tion, for which the Chaldees were famous, not only in the 
time of Cyrus, Ezra and Nehemiah, but 500 years after- 
wards, at Rome, Alexandria, and in almost every country 
of the known world. 



26.] DIOGENES LAERTIUS. 233 

The notices which the Greek and Roman writers have 
left concerning these peculiarities of the Israelitish people, 
are in general very slight ; this arises, no doubt, from the 
reserve which the Jews always showed towards other 
nations, amounting, in fact, to moroseness and animosity 
towards all foreigners. Yet Diogenes Laertius, in his 
Proem, section vi, has described the Jewish theology as an 
offshoot from that of the Chaldees, to whom he attributes 
the power of divination or prophesy, and the belief in two 
opposite principles, the one of evil and the other of good. 
The whole section is curious, and bears so close a relation 
to the present subject that no excuse is needed for quoting 
it at length : 

English translation. 

They say that the Chaldees occupied themselves with astronomy and 
foretelling : and the Magi with the worship of the gods, and sacrifices 
and prayers, as being the only persons whom the gods listened to. And 
that they make declarations concerning the being and origin of the 
gods, whom they state to be Eire, Earth, and Water. That they con- 
demn images, and especially those persons who say that the gods are 
male and female. 

7* That they deliver discourses on justice, and think it unholy to dis- 
pose of the dead by burning them. That they approve of a union with 
one's mother or daughter, as Sotion observes in his 23rd book. That 
they study divination and prophesy, and say that the gods appear to 
them. That the air is full of forms, which by emanation from the burning 
of incense are admitted to the sight of those who have sharp eyes. That 
they forbid the wearing of artificial and golden ornaments. Their clothing 
is white; their bed a pallet : their food is herbs, and cheese, and a cheap 
kind of bread ; their staff is a cane, with which, it is said, they pierce 
their cheese, and so divide and eat it. 

8. But they are not acquainted with magical divination, as Aristotle 
observes in his Treatise on Magic, and Dinon in the fifth book of his 
History. The latter also says that Zoroaster, interpreted, means 'the 
starworshipper/ and Hermodorus says the same. Aristotle, in the fifth 
book of his Philosophy, says that they are more ancient than the Egypt- 
ians, and that they hold two principles, a good genius, and an evil 

30 



231: HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

genius, the former named Zeus [Jupiter] or Oromasdes, the latter Hades 
[Pluto] or Arimanius. Hermippus also mentions this in his first book on 
the Magi, and Eudoxus in his Period, and Theopompus in the eighth 
book of his Philippics. 

9. He says also that, according to the Magi, men will rise from the 
dead, and become immortal, and that things will remain by their appel- 
lations. The same is related by Eudoxus of Pihodes. But Hecatseus 
says that, according to the Magi, the gods are also born : and Olearchus 
of Soli, in his book on Education, says that the Gyranosophists are 
descended from the Magi. Some say that the Jews also are an offshoot 
from them. Moreover those who have written about the Magi, con- 
demn Herodotus, observing that Xerxes did not throw his javelin up 
at the sun, nor cast chains upon the sea, because these have been de- 
clared by the Magi to be gods : but that his removing statues was 
a very likely thing for him to do. 

Even the Jewish writings themselves bear testimony to 
the Oriental origin of their celestial hierarchy : for the 
Jerusalem Talmud says that the names of the angels, as 
well as of the months, came from Babylon with the Jews 
who were returning from captivity.* In haste to pass on 
to the more immediate objects of this work, I leave this 
brief sketch to be filled out by others who may entertain 
the same views, with more leisure and greater ability to 
extend them. 

* See Beausobre, Histoire de la Manicheisme. tom. ii, p. 624. Jamblichus, in 
his ZEgyptiaca, § ii, ch. 3, speaks of angels, archangels and seraphim. 



27.] BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY. 235 



CHAPTER 27. 
That the books of the Old Testment are later than the 
Babylonish Captivity. 

In former chapters it has been shewn, by internal 
evidence, that the early books of the Hebrew Scriptures 
have been compiled at a later date than the age of Moses, 
Joshua and Samuel their supposed authors. This point 
must now be examined and established a little more 
minutely, and the arguments stated, on which is based the 
belief that the whole of the Old Testament was compiled 
out of original documents, and written, or re-written into 
its present form, at some period of Jewish history later 
than the Babylonish captivity. 

1. Close connexion of the narrative from Genesis to the 
second book of Kings, 

One of the arguments which have been adduced for the 
assertion that the Old Testament is a continuous narrative — 
i. e. continuous, as far as a compilation which retains the 
several legends entire, can possibly be — is the close verbal 
connection which is manifest between the several divisions 
of the volume. Now, as it is notorious that the second 
book of Kings must have been written after the Babylonish 
captivity, because it relates facts which happened many 
years after that event, it follows that the whole bible 
to the end of the second book of Kings must have been 
compiled at a later period than the captivity of Babylon. 
For, the whole of a book, which is supposed to be one and 
complete, must have been written nearly at the same 
time. Such, at least, is the generally received opinion of 
those who are conversant with books and the various 
questions which relate to them. 



236 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

But there are other powerful reasons which lead to the 
same conclusion. 

2. Silence concerning the mode in which the book of the 
Lazo was preserved during the captivity. 

We have an indirect testimony to the non-existence of 
the Pentateuch before the Captivity in the remarkable 
silence which all the Hebrew Scriptures observe concerning 
the mode in which this valuable national relic may have 
been preserved during the convulsions which tore the 
Jewish state and ended in the temporary destruction of its 
nationality. Either the book was conveyed to Babylon or 
it was left in Judaea. But Judaea was deprived of its 
principal inhabitants : those who remained were too ignorant 
to appreciate such a volume as the Pentateuch and unlikely 
to have preserved it. Those of the nation who were 
carried to Babylon may have conveyed it with them in 
secret, though it is not likely that such an ancient and 
important document should have escaped the hands of 
Shishak, Nebuchadnezzar and others who so often spoliated 
the Jewish Temple. We read of the silver and the gold, 
with other valuables which were carried away by those 
invaders, either into Egypt or to Babylon, but it is not 
related that they got possession of any book held in 
reverence by the Jewish people, or that the priests used 
any device to prevent their sacred books from falling into 
the hands of the enemy. In all these cases of plunder 
the historian is very explicit in describing the nature and 
extent of the booty which they carried off. When Shishak 
returned to Egypt after invading Palestine, we read as 
follows : 

So Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, and took away 
the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's 
house; he took all: he carried away also the shields of gold which 
Solomon had made. II Chron. xii, 9. 



27.] BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY. ^37 

And again, when Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon, 
the treasures which accompanied him are thus described. 

Against him [Jehoiakim] came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, 
and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar 
also carried of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon, and put 
them in his temple at Babylon. Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, 
and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, 
behold they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah : 
and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. Jehoiachin was eight 
years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and 
ten days in Jerusalem : and he did that which was evil in the sight of 
the Lord. And, when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent 
and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house 
of the Lord, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and 
Jerusalem. 11 Chron. xxxvi, 6-10. 

In neither of these passages, though so many valuable 
articles of plunder are enumerated, is there the least notice 
taken of the book of the Law, or of any book at all. 
This surely gives rise to a strong suspicion that the sacred 
books of the Jews did not then exist ; for books were, in 
ancient times, not only not disregarded, but actually held 
in the highest esteem. A copy of the Hebrew bible, 
written by the hand, on vellum, or any other valuable 
substance, would even in the present day cost a conside- 
rable sum of money, certainly as much as several pairs of 
silver, or even gold candlesticks ; and we know from 
history, that manuscripts have been considered, even by 
kings, as the most costly and valuable of their treasures. 
If the original manuscript of Moses or even an authentic 
copy of it had been preserved down to the time of Nebu- 
chadnezzar, we should certainly have learnt from later 
writers, with sorrow, that it was seized and carried to 
Babylon by the plunderers, or they would have triumphantly 
described the interposition of Providence, by which their 
national relic was preserved from profane hands. 

But no information has been preserved ta us on this 



238 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

very important question ; and in the absence of such 
authentic data, modern writers, who ireat of this period of 
Jewish history, are compelled to interweave such facts as 
are recorded with conjectures of their own in order to 
account for the appearance of the book of the Old Testa- 
ment in its present totality. The most liberal and intelligent 
account of this matter that I have seen is to be found in 
Dr Milman's History of the Jews (vol. ii, p, 25) : 

Ezra, who had been superseded in the civil administration by 
Neliemiah, had applied himself to his more momentous task — the 
compilation of the Sacred Books of the Jews. Much of the Hebrew 
literature was lost at the time of the Captivity ; the ancient Book of 
Jaslier, that of the wars of the Lord, the writings of Gad and Iddo the 
Prophet, and those of Solomon on Natural History. The rest, 
particularly the Law, of which, after the discovery of the original by 
Hilkiah, many copies were taken ; the historical books, the poetry, 
including all the prophetic writings, except those of Malachi, were 
collected, revised, and either at that lime, or subsequently, arranged, in 
three great divisions; the Law, containing the five Books of Moses; 
the Prophets, the historical and prophetical books ; the Hagiographa, 
called also the Psalms, containing Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the 
song of Solomon. At a later period, probably in the time of Simon the 
Just, the books of Malachi, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther were added, and 
what is called the Canon of Jewish Scripture finally closed. It is most 
likely that from this time the Jews began to establish synagogues or places 
of public worship and instruction, for the use of wfiich copies of the 
sacred writings were multiplied. The law, then revised and corrected, 
was publicly read by Ezra, the people listening with the most devout 
attention; the feast of Tabernacles was celebrated with considerable 
splendour. After this festival a solemn fast was proclaimed : the whole 
people, having confessed and bewailed their offences, deliberately 
renewed the covenant with the God of their fathers. An oath was 
administered, that they would keep the law ; avoid intermarriages with 
strangers ; neither buy nor sell on the Sabbath ; observe the sabbatical 
year, and remit all debts according to the law ; pay a tax of a third of 
a shekel for the service of the temple ; and offer all first-fruits, and 
all tithes to the Levites. Thus the Jewish constitution was finally 
re-established. 



27.] BABYLONISH MODE OF BUILDING. 239 

In the twelfth year of his administration Nehemiah returned to the 
Persian court. But the weak and unsettled polity required a prudent 
and popular government. In his absence affairs soon fell into disorder. 
Notwithstanding the remonstrances of Malachi, the last of the prophets, 
the solemn covenant was forgotten; and on his return, after a residence 
of some time in Persia, Xehemiah found the High Priest, Eliashib 
himself, in close alliance with the deadly enemy of the Jews, Tobiah the 
Ammonite, and a chamber in the temple assigned for the use of this 
stranger. A grandson of the High Priest had taken as his wife a 
daughter of their other adversary Sanballat. Others of the people had 
married in the adjacent tribes, had forgotten their native tongue, and 
spoke a mixed and barbarons jargon; the Sabbath was violated both 
by the native Jews and by the Tyrian traders, who sold their fish and 
merchandize at the gates of Jerusalem. Armed with the authority of a 
Persian satrap, and that of his own munificent and conciliatory character 
— for as governor he had lived on a magnificent scale, and continually 
entertained 150 of the chief leaders at his own table — Xehemiah 
reformed all these disorders. Among the rest he expelled from Jeru- 
salem Manasseh, the son of Joiada, (who succeeded Eliashib in the high 
priesthood), on account of his unlawful marriage with the daughter of 
Sanballat the Horonite. Sanballat meditated signal revenge. lie built 
a rival temple on the mountain of Gerizim, and appointed Manasseh 
High Priest ; and thus the schism between the two nations was perpe- 
tuated for ever. The Jews ascribe all the knowledge of the law anions' 
the Samaritans, even their possession of the sacred books, to the apos- 
tacy of Manasseh.* The rival temple, they assert, became the place of 
refuge to all the refractory and licentious Jews, who could not endure 
the strict administration of the law in Judaea. Miliiax's Hist, of 
the Jews, vol. ii, p. 25. 

3. Allusion in Genesis to the Babylonish mode of 
building. 
A remarkable passage, furnishing internal evidence that 
the Old Testament was written after the Babylonish capti- 
vity, occurs in Genesis xi, 3, where the building of the 
tower of Babel is described : 

* One would think that no other proof could be wanting, to shew the absur- 
dity of the supposition that the Samaritan Pentateuch is older than the Hebrew. 
See page 80. 



240 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

And they said one to another, " Go to, let us make brick, and burn 
them thoroughly": and they had brick for stone, and slime had they 
for mortar. 

The last words of this verse are not correctly translated : 
the Hebrew is, 

and it is observable that the letters *oi enter into the 
composition of the first and last of the four words. The 
meaning of this triliteral root is threefold, as a verb to 
bubble up, as a noun bitumen and slime or clay. According 
to the vowel-points the proper translation of the passage 
is " and bitumen had they for mortar (cement or clay)." 
What gives particular importance to this passage is the fact 
that bitumen is found in Mesopotamia or Chaldaea, where 
it oozes out from the ground and is found floating upon 
the water. We have this fact on the testimony of Hero- 
dotus, who says of a well near Susa, in Book vi, chapter 
1 19 of his History : 

Kal yap acr^aXrov teat a\as Kal ekaiov apvo-crovrcu ef clvtov Tpoirat 
tocg>$€' avrXeerat fxev Krj\cov7)i'(p f ami Be yavXov rjfjuav aa/cov ol 
irpoaBeBerai • v7rorw]ra^ Be tovtg> avrXeet, Kal eiretrev ey^eec l<$ Be%a- 
fievrjv etc Be Tavrrjq e? aWo Bia-^eofxevov Tpdirerai Tpifyaaias oBovs* 

For they draw bitumen and salt and oil out of it, in such manner as 
this : it is dravin with a pole, to which half a skin is bound instead of a 
bucket; with this they dip and draw up, and then pour the contents 
into a receiver: from this it is poured off into another vessel, and 
turned iuto three different channels. 

Again in Book i, chapter 179, speaking of a river 
named Is : 

Ovto? S)v 6 'I? TTOTa/Jbbf; afia rS vBan 6po/jL/3ov<; ao~<f>d\TOv avaBiBol 
ttoXXol'?, evOev r) ao-tyaXro? e? to ev Ba/BvXcovi rel^o? eKOfilaOrj. 

This river, the Is, casts up with its water many lumps of bitumen, 
from whence the bitumen was fetched to build the wall at Babylon. 

Thus it appears that the Babylonians used bitumen 



27.] BEYOND JORDAN. 241 

for cement in building, and it is well known that they used 
bricks also, because their country does not produce stone. 
The writer of the passage in Genesis must have himself 
seen or heard from others that the Babylonian buildings 
were constructed of brick and bitumen. The fact described 
in the text before us is named as something remarkable 
because different from the customs of the people for whose 
use it was written. But surely, if this was written just 
after the Israelites had escaped out of Egypt, it would be 
more novel for them to hear of stone being used than 
brick, for the hardship of their own slavery in Egypt had 
consisted in the compulsory and severely exacted manu- 
facture of this article; and it is most probable that they 
had never seen or heard of bitumen, and would therefore 
know nothing about it. But if the text before us was 
written after the Babylonish captivity, the account would 
come with propriety from a writer who knew of the remark- 
able nature of Babylonian architecture, and would be highly 
intelligible to the readers, as well known to be applicable 
to Babylon, but not to their own country Judsea. 

4. The expressions on this side Jordan, beyond Jordan 

examined. 

It has been noticed in page 48 that the expression "on 
this side Jordan" in Deuteronomy i, 1, has been considered 
as an indirect testimony that the book, in which it occurs, 
was written by Moses, because the words denote that the 
writer was on the eastern side of the river Jordan, and 
Moses died before the Israelites crossed to the western 
side of that river. I have also asserted that these 
words are not correctly rendered in our Bible. The verse 
Deut. i, 1, is here subjoined, with Dr Shuckford's observa- 
tions upon it, shewing that the inaccuracy of our translation 
in this passage has already occurred to the notice 
of others: 

31 



242 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Deuteronomy i, 1. These be the words which Moses spake unto all 
Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against 
the Reel Sea, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and 
Dizahab. 

I might here, [says Br &] answer a trifling cavil offered concerning the 
Book of Deuteronomy, raised from the words here cited. It is pretended 
that be neber ha Jarden, which we translate on this side Jordan, do 
rather signify beyond or on the other side Jordan, and consequently, that 
these words imply Moses not to have wrote the book of Deuteronomy, 
for that the book so called was wrote by a person who had passed over 
Jordan, and could, according to the intimation of these words, remark, 
that the words of Moses were spoke on a different side the river from 
the place where the book was written. But were there no other, the 
10th and 13th verses of the 50th chapter of Genesis are sufficient to 
shew the word beneber to have the signification we take it in. When 
Joseph went up out of Egypt to bury his father, they journeyed from 
Goshen into Canaan, and came to the cave of Macpelah before Mamre, 
in their way to which they stopped at the threshing-flour of Atad bene- 
ber ha Jarden, not beyond, but on this side Jordan ; for they did not 
travel into Canaan, so far as to the river Jordan. Shuckf. Connection 
v. Ill, pref. page ix. 

Dr Shuckford does not much improve his case by citing 
a second passage in which the same Hebrew words occur ; 
for his explanation implies that they are wrongly translated 
in the second passage, if not in the first. The question 
how we should interpret the Hebrew word in these cases 
depends on the place where the writer was when he wrote, 
and on the meaning which he intended to convey. The 
exact grammatical signification of the word must first be 
ascertained ; and then we may enquire, if any particular 
circumstances, habits of life, or figure of speech, has in 
later times modified this meaning. 

It appears that our translators have rendered the same 
Hebrew words be neber ha Jarden by two contradictory 
English expressions. This is an important question, and 
requires to be fully investigated, for, as our knowledge of 
the Old Testament is derived, for the great body of our 
people, from a translation only, it is of vital importance that 



27.] BEYOND JORDAN. 243 

the translation of it should be scrupulously accurate and 
faithful. 

The words be neber ha Jarden are written in the Hebrew 
character without points, thus : pTfl 11V2. T fte ^ rst °f 
these words, — or, as we should call it if it were English, 
the second — for the Hebrew is read from right to left — is 
compounded of be and neber. The prefix be is a sort of 
preposition, meaning in. The second part of the compound 
neber is thus explained in Dr Winer's Hebrew Lexicon, 8vo 
Leipzig, 1828, page 690 : 

**\2.V m. 1) regio ulterior- (das Jemeltige) ; VT^Jl ^1^ regio trans- 
jordanensis Gen. 50, 10. 11. Deut. 1, 1. 

Here we have the very two passages which Dr Shuckford 
refers to, adduced as illustrations that neber means trans, 
f( beyond," and not on this side. Our translators, then, 
have mistranslated one of the verses in question, namely 
Deut. 1, 1 ; for in the other passage, Gen. 1, 10, the word 
is rightly rendered " beyond." It may be inquired, to 
what source so serious an error is to be ascribed ; for that 
our translators have intentionally mistranslated the plain 
sense of any passage in the Old Tertanent, is not for a 
moment to be imagined. We shall see, from a collation 
of other passages where the same word neber occurs, that 
the cause of its mistranslation in one of the passages 
before us may be traced beyond the reach of doubt. 

(1) Genesis 1, 10. And they came to the threshing-floor of Atad, 
which is beyond Jordan, and there they mourned with a great and very 
sore lamentation : and he made a mourning for his father seven days. 

(2) Numbers xxi, 13. Erom thence they removed, and pitched on 
the other side of Anion, which is in the wilderness that cometh out of 
the coast of the Amorites : for Arnon is the border of Moab, between 
Moab and the Amorites. 

(3) .Deuteronomy i, 1, already given in page 242. 

(4) Deuteronomy xxx, 13. Neither is it beyond the sea, that 
thou shouldest say, " Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring 
it unto us, that we may hear it and do it ?" 



244 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

(5) Joshua xiv, 3. Eor Moses had given the inheritance of two 
tribes and an half tribe on the other side Jordan : but unto the Levites 
he gave none inheritance among them. 

(6) Joshua xxiv, 2. 3. And Joshua said unto all the people, "Thus 
saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of 
the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the 
father of Nachor : and they served other gods. And I took your 
father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him 
throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his- seed, and gave 
him Isaac." 

(7) II Samuel, x, 16. And Hadarezer sent, and brought out the 
Syrians that were beyond the river : and they came to Helam ; and 
Shobach the captain of the host of Hadarezer went before them. 

(8) I Kings i\, 24. For he had dominion over all the region on 
this side the river, from Tiphsah {Tkapsacus) even unto Azzah, over all 
the kings on this side the river : and he had peace on all sides round 
about him. 

(9) I Chron. xxvi, 30. And of the Hebronites, Hashabiah and his 
brethren, men of valour, a thousand and seven hundred, were officers 
among them of Israel on this side Jordan westward in all the business 
of the Lord, and in the service of the king. 

(10) Ezra viii, 36. And they delivered the king's commission unto 
the king's lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river : 
<tnd they furthered the people, and the house of God. 

(11) Nehemiah ii, 7. Moreover I said unto the king " If it please 
the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, 
that they may convey me over till I come into Judah." 

(12) ■ — hi, 7. And next unto them repaired Melatiah the 

Gibeonite, and Jadon the Meronothite, the men of Gibeon, and of 
Mizpah, unto the throne of the governor on this side the river. 

(13) Isaiah vii, 20. In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor 
that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, 
the head and the hair of the feet : and it shall also consume the beard. 

In these 13 passages the Hebrew word neber is the 
same ; and in 8 of them it is correctly rendered by the 
words ' beyond ' c on the other side of ' whilst in the other 
5, Nos. 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, the same word is wrongly translated 
on this side of. 



27.] BEYOND JORDAN. 245 

There can be no doubt that the Hebrew word neber 
communicates to all its compounds the signification of 
beyond, further, ulterior, or on the other side of: and I find 
a remark in Dr Winer's Hebrew Lexicon which explains 
the whole difficulty. He observes that the word means 
usually ' trans Jordan em ' beyond Jordan,], e. ' ab oriente 
Palaestinas ' on the eastern side from Palestine ; but that in 
I Chron. xxvi, 36, ' ex seriorum Judaeorum usu,' according 
to the later practice of the Jezvs, it means ' ab occidente 
Jordanis ' on the western side of Jordan. 

In other words the expression beyond Jordan or beyond 
the flood (i. e. the river Euphrates), must obviously convey 
a different meaning, according to the position of the per- 
son speaking or writing : and as a large number of the 
Israelites were carried to Babylon, where they appear to 
have emerged from their -bondage, and to have gained 
favour at court, they would then naturally describe their 
own land Judaea as lying beyond Jordan, whereas in for- 
mer times Babylon would have been spoken of as lying 
beyond, and Palestine as lying on this side Jordan. Let us 
see how this explanation applies. 

In I Kings iv, 24, Solomon is said to have held dominion 
over all the country on this side the river [the Euphrates 
par excellence']. But Dr Winer says that it ought to be 
rendered beyond the river, for no one doubts that the books 
of Kings were written after the Babylonish captivity [libros 
enim regum post exilium Babylonicum scriptos esse, vix dubi- 
tatur : Cf. de Wette, Einleit. p. 280.] " But the writer 
seems to write with reference to the place where he had 
formerly been 5 and to use the description to which he had 
been there accustomed [Sed videtur scriptor ex eo, i?i quo 
ipse constitutus erat, loco rem metiri, vel appellatione turn usu 
recepta uti]." We may illustrate this very just remark of 
Dr Winer by an instance which will be at once familiar to 
every school-boy. The northern part of Italy was anciently 



246 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. CHAP. 

inhabited by Gauls and called by the Romans Gallia Cisal- 
pina Gaul on this side the Alps, The name was appropriate 
in the mouth of every one living on the same side of the 
Alps as the country which he was describing. But in pro- 
cess of time foreigners began to call it " Cisalpine Gaul/' 
even though they themselves resided on the other side 
of the Alps. This then, is precisely the case with the 
Israelites : their expressions Trans-Jordan, and Trans- 
euphratean, in early times denoted the eastern, but after 
the Babylonish captivity, either the eastern or western side 
of the rivers, according as they retained or abandoned, when 
they returned to their own country, the new use of the term 
which they had acquired at Babylon. 

We must then restore the word 'beyond' in the five 
passages before quoted, and every thing becomes consis- 
tent and harmonious. It must be determined in each par- 
ticular case whether the eastern or western side of the 
river was intended by the writer. I leave the reader to 
institute this enquiry for himself, only cautioning him to 
observe that the compilers who united all the original 
chronicles and fragments, from which the Old Testament 
is composed, may have retained or altered the word ren- 
dered beyond, according to their particular notions of pro- 
priety or perhaps by pure accident. The use which can 
be derived to our present enquiry from the foregoing 
remarks, is the inference that as this confused use of terms 
originated in the Babylonish Captivity, the Old Testament 
must have been compiled after or during that Captivity. 

5. The Captivity and Assyria are actually mentioned in 

the early books of the Old Testament, 

i. 

In Numbers xxiv, 21 — 22, we read: 

And he [Balaam] looked on the Kenites, and took up his parable, 
and said, " Strong is thy dwelling-place, and thou pultest thy nest in a 
rock. Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry 



27.] CAPTIVITY. 247 

tliee awav captive. And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim, 
and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish 
for ever." 

Notes in the Family Bible : 

21. — the Kenites,'] Not one of the Canaanitish nations, mentioned in 
Gen. xv, 19, bat probably a tribe of the Midianites : Jethro the father- 
in-law of Moses, being called in one place "the priest of Midian/' 
Exod. iii, 1, and in another, " the Kenite/' Judges i. 16. Bp Newton. 

22. Nevertheless the Kenite &c] The Amalekites were to be utterly 
destroyed, but the Kenites were to be carried captive. And accord- 
ingly, when Saul was sent to destroy the Amalekites, he ordered the 
Kenites to depart from among them, I Sam. xv, 6. This shews that 
they were "■ wasted " and reduced to a low 7 and weak condition. 
And, as the kings of Assyria carried captive, not only the Jews, but 
also the Syrians, II Kings xvi, 9, and several other nations, II Kings 
xix, 12, 13, it is highly probable that the Kenites shared the same fate 
with their neighbours ; especially as some Kenites are mentioned among 
the Jews after their return from captivity. Bp. Newton. 

2. 

In Deuteronomy, xxix, 25 — 28, are described the evils 
which should happen to the Israelites in case of their not 
observing the law which had been given by Moses : 

Then men shall say, " Because they have forsaken the covenant of 
the Lord God of their fathers, which he made with them when he 
brought them forth out of the land of Egypt. Eor they went and 
served other gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given 
unto them. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against this land 
to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book. And the 
Lord rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great 
indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day." 

Here is an allusion to the great downfall of the first 
Israelitish monarchy, too plain to be interpreted as a sup- 
pose! case, merely, of a misfortune which only might befall 
them, if they should be disobedient to God's command- 
ments. The impression, which the words irresistibly leave 
on the mind, is that the calamity of defeat and transporta- 
tion into a strange country had actually befallen them 
when those words were written. 



248 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 



CHAPTER 28. 

On the art of writing — Its gradual development through 
five stages 1.* mexican pi ctuee- writing : 2. egyptian hiero- 
GLYPHICS : 3. Chinese word-writing : 4. Hebrew syllabic or 

CONSONANTAL WRITING : 5. ALPHABETIC WRITING. 

The changes which are effected by lapse of time in the 
language of a nation, though partly influenced by external 
causes, are, nevertheless, partly independent of those causes. 
Motion is one of the principles of the universe and not 
merely of human things. Nothing is stationary : the great 
outlines of the material globe, on which we live, are daily 
changing ; the ocean, which washes the coasts of the solid 
continents of the earth, is ever fretting and chafing, as if 
eager to extend its dominion ; and, whilst in some parts it 
has made large encroachments upon the land, it has in 
other places receded before its enemy : so that, whilst 
ships now sail over an expanse of water where the husband- 
men formerly drove his plough, we may elsewhere gather 
fruit and flowers, where in bygone ages the sailor steered 
his ship. 

Man is subject to the same physical laws as the creation 
which surrounds him. Through the long period of 
authentic history, no nation has retained for two hundred 
years all the original elements of its constitution. Its 
language, as well as almost all other features, has submitted 
to the law of change. The life of even one man is long 
enough to furnish instances of this law. New fashions 
arise, whether of dress, gait, speech, pronunciation or 
writing, which draw after them the imitation of buoyant 
and fickle youth, whilst they, as surely, bring down the 



28.] ART OF WRITING. 249 

reprobation of the old, who think nothing right or good, 
but what themselves did when they were boys. 

laudator teraporis acti 
Se puero. 

Novelty is a constant charm. "Did Ennius or Lucilius 
enrich the native tongue of Latium by the introduction of 
new words, and shall Horace be the object of the public 
execration because he coined a few fresh words, which 
before his time were unknown ? * The law of finality must 
be abandoned, both by the politician and the philosopher. 
It must also be abandoned by the historian; for whoever 
casts his figures, of different countries and of ages far 
I'emote, in the same mould, will find that his imitations 
present a strong likeness to one another, but are very 
imperfect representations of the originals. 

If however, notwithstanding these observations, we can 
suppose any people in the world to have retained the use 
of the same language so completely, that a book written 
nearly a thousand years ago, could be still read to the 
people by their priests and teachers, so as to be understood 
by the audience, the people selected to illustrate this 
permanence of language could not be the Israelites, who, 
as we have seen in former chapters, went through most 
remarkable and continual vicissitudes. 

I shall devote the present chapter to an inquiry into 
the origin of the Art of Writing, and especially of Alpha- 
betic writing, by the help of which alone we have obtained 
almost all the knowledge that we possess both of former 
times and of our own species. 

The art of writing is the most noble that mankind have 
yet acquired. It enables persons residing in remote 
quarters of the world, to communicate their thoughts to 
one another with no more delay than the time necessary 
for transmitting the vehicle to which those thoughts are 

32 



250 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

consigned. It also furnishes the means of handing down 
the history of past ages to the most distant posterity, and 
so of accumulating, for the benefit of each succeeding 
generation, all the wisdom which their predecessors have 
laid up. 

Yet the origin of this art, so wonderful for its results, 
and so useful to mankind in the daily business of life, is 
utterly lost in obscurity, though it has been often inves- 
tigated with all that profound sagacity of which men are 
capable, when they apply the powers of their intellect to a 
specific subject of enquiry. 

It is perhaps vain to hope that it will ever be discovered 
to whom mankind is indebted for the invention of this 
wonderful art : because, the name of the inventor not 
having been recorded, no stretch of intellect can supply 
the absence of what is evidently a matter of fact, until 
some fresh documents shall be discovered, which may help 
us to elucidate the difficulty. 

It has been maintained by some authors that the art of 
alphabetic writing was first given to mankind by an 
immediate revelation from God. Among those who hold 
this theory may be mentioned Dr Wall, the learned pro- 
fessor of Hebrew at the University of Dublin. In a work* 
published within a few years on this subject, he has pro- 
pounded an opinion that the knowledge of Alphabetical 
Characters was first communicated by God, through 
Moses, to the Israelites at the time of the promulgation of 
the H ebrew Law. And the learned author lays for the basis 
of this conclusion the fact that the inhabitants of Egypt, 



* An examination of the ancient orthography of the Jews, and of the original 
state of the text of the Hebrew Bible. Part the First, containing an Inquiry 
into the origin of Alphabetic Writing ; with which is incorporated an essay on 
the Egyptian Hieroglyphics. By C. W. Wall, D. D. senior fellow of Trinity 
College, and professor of Hebrew in the. University of Dublin, Royal 8vo 
London 1835. 



28.] ART OF WRITING, 251 

where alone the Israelites could, by human means, have 
previously learnt the art of alphabetic writing, did not 
possess that art, until long after Moses and the delivery 
of the Law. I accept the premises which the learned 
professor has laid down, and with much learning established, 
but I deny his conclusion, because a better and more 
rational conclusion seems to follow, namely that the 
Hebrew law was not given by Moses, in alphabetic 
writing, at all. 

If then we reject the theory, that alphabetic writing was 
given by immediate revelation to mankind, this art must 
be supposed to have proceeded from the natural talents of 
the human race gradually, from small beginnings, elaborat- 
ing the invention until it has at length attained to its pre- 
sent state of perfection. It remains to be shewn that 
existing facts strongly corroborate this view, and that no 
other view is compatible with these facts. 

There can be little doubt [says the author of the Celtic Researches^ 
that the primitive ages possessed some means, beside oral tradition, of 
recording and perpetuating their several brandies of knowledge, but 
respecting the nature of these means, we are left some what in the dark. 
It is universally allowed that no human device could have answered 
this purpose better than alphabetic writing. Page 34. * 

But it is not necessary that this art should have existed 
in several of the ancient nations ; for 

In the back settlements of America we find men accommodated like 
savages, but informed as members of civil society ; and in ancient authors 
we read of sages, of no mean fame, residing amongst rude and barba- 
rous nations. Celtic Res. p. 114. 

The art of writing, however excellent, is no more than 
one of the numerous arts by which the life of man is 
embellished and improved, and it is possible for a people 
to attain to a high state, of advancement in many respects, 
whilst its individuals may be able neither to read nor write. 



252 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

We are too apt to attach the idea of barbarism to those 
who are ignorant of the art of reading and writing, forget- 
ting that some of our own kings, and almost all our nobility 
in former times, knew nothing of either the one or the 
other. Perhaps a just idea of this subject may be formed 
by saying that a nation ignorant of the use of letters, can 
progress in civilization only to that point which the life of 
one man can attain to, because the use of letters alone can 
enable a nation to store up the successive and accumulated 
wisdom of several lives.* 

Yet if we take the most simple and untutored people 
that History has made us acquainted with, we shall find 
that they have some mode of conveying their thoughts, 
analogous, though infinitely inferior, to alphabetic writing. 



* The Germans, in the age of Tacitus, were unacquainted withtheuse of letters ; 
and the use of letters is the principal circumstance that distinguishes a civilized 
people from a herd of savages incapable of knowledge or reflection. Without that 
artificial help, the human memory soon dissipates or corrupts the ideas intrusted to 
her charge ; and the nobler faculties of the mind, no longer supplied with models or 
with materials, gradually ftn'get their powers ; the judgment becomes languid and 
lethargic, the imagination languid or ii regular. Fully to apprehend this impor- 
tant truth, let us attempt, in an improved society, to calculate the immense dis- 
tance between «the man of learning and the illiterate peasant. The former, by 
reading and reflection, multiplies his own experience and lives in distant ages 
and remote countries , whilst the latter, rooted to a single spot and confined to a 
few years of existence, surpasses, but very little, his fellow-labourer the ox in the 
exercise of his mental faculties, The same, and even a greater, difference will 
be found between nations than between individuals, and we may safely pronounce, 
that without some species of writing, no people has ever preserved the faithful 
annals of their history, ever made any considerable progress in the abstract 
sciences, or ever possessed, in any tolerable degree of perfection, the useful and 
agreeable arts of life. Gibbon, chap, ix, vol. I, p. 352 of the 12 vol. edit. Lon- 
don 18 2. 

* Tacitus, Germ, ii, 19. Literarum se creta vtri pariter ac fceminae ignorant. We may rest conten- 
ted with this decisive authority, without entering into the obscure disputes concerning the antiouity 
of the Runic characters. The learned Celsius, a Swede, a scholar, and a philosopher, was of opinion, 
that they were nothing more than the Roman letters, wiih the curves changed into straight lines for 
the ease of engraving See Pelloutier, Histoire des Celtes, 1. ii. c. 11. Dictionane Diplomatique, torn. 
i, p . 223. We may add, that the oldest Runic inscriptions are supposed to he of the third century, and 
the most ancient writer who mentions the Runic characters is Venar-Mus Fortunrtus (Carm vi ? , is ), 
who lived tow..r~£ the end of the six+h r?3tury, 



28.] PICTURE-WRITING. 253 

1. Mexican Picture-writing. 
The first attempts of a people to convey to a distance, 
or to deliver down to a future age, the knowledge of an 
event, would obviously be to draw a picture of that event 
with all its circumstances, delineated, as they presented 
themselves to the eyes of the narrator ; and this mode has, 
no doubt, been practised in every nation of the earth. It 
is, indeed, practised at present in every country, where 
books are printed, as being the only mode in which many 
subjects, treated of in those books, can be faithfully and 
satisfactorily described. Pictures are still used for such 
purposes, w 7 here written language would fail, though pic- 
tures are now used only as subordinate to letters, whereas 
in certain nations, that have come to our knowledge, Pic- 
ture-writing has been the only mode of conveying the 
information which now is transmitted by means of alpha- 
betical characters. That this is not a mere theory may be 
shewn by the instance of the Mexicans, who, when invad- 
ed by Cortes in the sixteenth century, possessed no alpha- 
betic writing at all, but made use of pictures taken on the 
spot, to describe to their king in his capital city, the nature 
of the foreigners who had landed in his coasts, their ships, 
their arms, accoutrements, and general appearance. The 
effect which these pictures produced on the minds of those 
who had not seen the Spanish invaders, was, no doubt, the 
same as that which would be conveyed to the mind of a 
Frenchman, on entering the Gallery of Battles (Salle des 
Batailles) at Versailles, by the large pictures of the battles 
of Wagram, Austerlitz, and others, which are there sus- 
pended. If all historical records of Mexico on the one 
hand, or of France on the other, were destroyed, and 
these pictures alone were preserved, they would still tell 
the story of those events though without that vividness of 
detail, or identification of nation, which could only be 
obtained from collateral sources. 



254 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

2. Hieroglyphics. 

The incompleteness of such Picture-writing would sug- 
gest itself sooner or later to those who practised it, accord- 
ing to their capacity for carrying arts to perfection. The 
Mexicans do not appear to have ever advanced beyond 
this first stage in what may be termed the literary art, and 
this is a strong argument against the supposed antiquity of 
the Mexican nation. There are certain stages, through 
which, more or less, all nations must pass, and a people, 
that have not advanced beyond picture-writing, have made 
but one step at all in the road of improvement. We must 
turn to Egypt for the next step, and there we find traces 
of the more advanced species of writing which is generally 
denominated Hieroglyphics. 

To understand aright the peculiar characters which pass 
under this name, we must not lose sight of the antecedent 
Picture-writing, from which Hieroglyphics sprang. The 
original delineation of a battle would, as w 7 e have seen, be 
but imperfectly understood to the next generation, and 
the picture would in process of time require the aid of an 
interpreter to explain all its various circumstances and 
details. The question then was in what manner could cer- 
tain symbols be placed in connection, one with another, 
so as to represent a train of ideas, descriptive of certain 
subjects, which those who possessed the key to this system, 
could understand ? This question occurred to the ancient 
Egyptians, and . they solved it by choosing a series of 
emblems, mostly objects of common occurrence in their 
country, and attaching to these objects a certain meaning 
which should always be the same under the same circum- 
stances, and so was formed the celebrated Hieroglyphic al 
system of the ^Egyptians. The long duration of the 
Egyptian R culture ! 4 has furnished us with the most satisfac- 
tory proof that this statement of the origin of Hierogly- 



28.] HIEROGLYPHICS. 255 

phics is correct ; for in Egypt are preserved not only 
immense numbers of such inscriptions ; but also of fresco 
paintings, evidently wrought for the purpose of handing 
down to posterity the knowledge of certain great events. 
By which means we have, in the same country, instances 
of both the earliest kinds of writing, namely the Hierogly- 
phical, and the Pictorial from which the former is an 
offshoot. 

But, it must be admitted, after all, with sorrow, that 
the Hieroglyphics, however they may be an improvement 
on Picture writing, to those who possess the key of the 
system, yet to us who have no clue, or a weak one, to the 
interpretation of them, they are as obscure as the Picture- 
writing from which they first arose. 

It must not, however, be inferred that modern ingenuity 
has been altogether baffled in its attempt to decipher the 
Egyptian Hieroglyphics. The key has not been altogether 
lost, for the meaning of some of their symbols has been 
preserved by ancient authors. One instance of this may 
suffice ; it is the famous passage of Clemens Alexandrinus 
who lived at the beginning of the third century of the 
Christian asra. His words are these : 

Nat fxrjv fcal iv AioairoKei tj;? Alyvirrov, eirl rod lepov Kakov/nevou 
Uvkwvos, BiarervTrcorai iraiSlov fiev, yevecreco^ avfji(3o\ov • (fiOopas Se, 6 
yepcov ' ©eov re av, 6 lepa^ ■ &>s 6 l^Ovs, jULicrovs ■ kcli, kwt oKKo iraXtv 
crrjfjLaivojJLevov, 6 /cpoxcSeiXo?, avaiheias • (palverat tolvvv avvTiOe/jLevov rb 
irav <tv/jl/3o\ov, hrjXatTLicbv elvac rovSe ■ " '/2 ytyv6f,ievoL /cat airoytyvo- 
fievoi, ©eo? jjLLael avalSeiav." Strom, lib. v, p. 413. ed. Heinsii. 

At Diospolis in Egypt, on the temple called Pylon, is sculptured, a 
boy, the emblem of birth; an old man, the emblem of death; the 
hawk, an emblem of God, and. a fish, that of h itred ; and a crocodile 
(having here a different meaning from that which I before named for 
it) the emblem of irrpudence. The whole then put together symbolically 
seems to me to mean " you who are born, and you who die, God hates 
impudence." 

It has been properly observed of such hierogyphical 



256 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

inscriptions, that the want of connecting particles makes it 
difficult to ascertain their exact meaning. Thus the five 
figures, a boy, an old man, a haw -, a fish, and a crocodile, 
may have other meanings, besides that which Clemens 
Alexandrinus has assigned to them, though the five pre- 
vailing ideas would be repeated in all. For example, they 
may mean, " young and old may become Gods by hating 
impudence." This, it must be admitted, is a serious 
defect in the system of Hieroglyphics, though it is equally 
evident that they shew a great advance from the more 
ancient and simple mode of Picture-writing.* 

3. Word- Writing. 

I proceed to speak of the third distinct species of]writing, 
which, though emanating from the former, has certain 
marks peculiar to itself, or at least common to those other 



* The following observation-? of Dr Warburton on tills subject, are well adapted 
to convey a good notion of the general nature of Hieroglyphics and the manner 
in which they were used, though there are other parts of his account (not here 
quoted) which are far from accurate : 

" The inconveniences attending the too great bulk of the volume in writings of this kind [Picture- 
wrttingJ would soon set the more ingenious and better civib'zed peop'e upon contriving methods to 
abridge their characters : and of all the improvements of this kind, that which was invented by the 
Egyptians, and called Hieroglyphics, was by iar the most celebrated. By this contrivance, that 
writing, which amongst the Mexicans was only a simple painting, became in Egypt a pictural charac- 
ter. This abridgment was of three kinds ; and, as appears from the more or less art employed in the 
contrivance uf each, made by due degrees, and at three different peiiods. 

1. The first way was to make the principal circumstance in the subject stand for the 
whole. Thus, when they would describe a battle, or two armies in array, they painted (as we learn from 
that admirable fragment of antiquity, the hieroglyphics of Horapollo) two hanes ; one holding a 
and shield, the other a bow ; when a tumult, or popular insurrection, an armed man casting 
arrows; when a siege, a scaling ladder. This was of the utmost simplicity ; and, consequently, 
we must suppose it the earliest way of turning painting into an hieroglyphic, that is, making it a picture- 
character 

2. The second and more artful method of contraction, was, by putting the instrument of the 
thing, whether real or metaphorical, for the thing itself. Thus an eye, eminently- 
placed, was designed to represent God's omniscience; an eye and sceptre, to represent a 
monarch; a sword, their cruel enemy Ochus; and a ship and pilot, the governor of the 
universe 

3. Their third, and still more artificial method of abridging picture-writing, was, by making one 
thing to stand for, or represent another, where any quaint resemblance or 
analogy, in the representative, could be collected FROM THEIR OBSERVATION Off 

XATURE OR THEIR TRADITIONAL SUPERSTITIONS. 



28.] CHINESE SYMBOLS. 257 

kinds of writing, which have sprung out of it. According to 
this mode, every word, representing a separate idea, is ex- 
pressed by a single character. This kind of writing exists 
still, though much modified and improved, among the 
Chinese. In all the languages of China Proper the word 
for man, is represented in writing by a certain character, 
which all the inhabitants of the country recognize to mean 
the same thing, though in the different dialects, the words, 
when uttered by the mouth, sound decidedly and essentially 
different. The nature of this system may be easily illustra- 
ted by a similar mode which prevails among ourselves. The 
Arabic numerals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, and the Roman 
numerals I, II, III, IV, &c as well as the Greek, a, ft, 7, 
&c. are well known in all the nations of the world ; though 
in every different country, the word or name by which 
each of these is pronounced, is entirely different, yet the 
idea which these signs convey to the mind is essentially 
the same. 

There are evidently great advantages in this mode, over 
the Hieroglyphical which preceded ; for in Hieroglyphics, 
as far as we yet understand them, there were no means of 
denoting many particles and minor words of a sentence, 
which are yet necessary to make the meaning pointed and 
definite. But in word-writing, according to which it is not 
necessary that there should be any symbolical analogy be- 
tween the word, or idea, and the character expressing it, 
there is no reason why prepositions, conjunctions, and 
every inflection of noun or verb may not have its represen- 
tative in the written sentence. I do not mean to deny 
that the written characters were first chosen from some 
fancied similarity to the object represented by them. It 
is most probable that they were chosen for this reason, and 
thus they shew the third stage in the art of writing, 
rising as naturally out of the second, as that had before 

arisen from the first. There is also another peculia- 

32 



258 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [cHAP. 

rity in this system of word-writing, which in certain cases 
might be particularly advantageous. It has been shewn that 
persons speaking different languages might use the same 
books, in the same way as Englishmen and Frenchmen use 
the same books of arithmetical tables, containing nothing 
but figures, which, though pronounced differently, are 
understood by all alike. It is evident, however, that this 
advantage would not be found in the case of languages, 
where the words of a sentence are placed in a different 
order, or where a larger number of words go to make up 
the same idea in one than another, or where the ideas are 
differently divided between the words. 

The Chinese are the only people among whom this kind 
of writing is known, and the general disadvantages of it 
are most signal. As every word has a separate character, 
a person who has never before seen any particular word 
written, is unable to complete the sentence until he has 
obtained the sense of that word. The difficulty is cer- 
tainly lessened by the circumstance of the Chinese having 
only between two and three hundred simple monsyllabic 
sounds, represented each by a separate character ; and out 
of those simple elements their other words and characters 
are compounded. Still the difficulty of mastering the lan- 
guage of books in China is found so great that their litera- 
ture is very inferior, because the study of years is necessary 
to enable a man to read. 

4. Syllabic or consonantal writing in use among the 

Hebrezvs. 

At the point which we have now reached, a new and 
important principle has been introduced into the art, whose 
progress is here delineated. The original similarity between 
the symbol and the object represented, either no longer 
exists or is at all events no longer essential. In the two 
preceding systems of Picture-writing and Hieroglyphics ; 



28.] HEBREW CONSONANTS. 259 

the characters employed were ideagraphic, i. e. descriptive 
of the ideas which the words they represented implied, and 
consequently could not be chosen at discretion, but in the 
third stage of the art, word-writing, the symbols, though 
partly still, and especially in their origin, idea graphic, yet 
in process of time had partly lost this character, for they 
no longer presented an appearance analogous to the 
objects and ideas represented. According to this system 
every sound, which the human voice could express, had 
now its peculiar emblem, and those who were acquainted 
with a given number of these characters, could make use of 
them in writing, as far as the very extensive system of 
arithmetic combination will allow. 

These three methods of writing seem to have sprung 
naturally, the third from the second, and the second 
from the first. But the next improvement which was made 
in this art, was far more important. The necessity of 
learning new characters for every new word was still a 
burden and an impediment. By a happy thought it was 
successfully vanquished. Words were resolved into their 
first elements, and syllabic or Consonantal Writing was 
invented. It was found that about twenty characters de- 
note all the consonantal sounds which the human voice can 
ordinarily express. The number naturally varied in diffe- 
rent countries, but the principle was gained, and its develop- 
ment was simple and easy. It is universally admitted that 
the old Hebrews used this mode of writing, consisting 
wholly of consonants, which were pronounced by inserting 
a vowel sound between them. It is true that it might be 
difficult to know what vowel sound should in every case 
be inserted between the written consonants : this was left 
for the reader to supply by his knowledge of the language. 
Thus the first word in the Hebrew Bible being composed 
of the consonants B, R, S, T, might be pronounced 
Barasat, bereset, birisit, borosot, burusut, and in twenty other 



260 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

ways, according to the combinations of the letters a, e, i, 
(Zand u. Still the sounds do not greatly differ from one 
another, and a person who understood the Hebrew lan- 
guage well would have no difficulty, arising from this cause, 
in reading any book that might be placed before him. 
When however the Jews, in later ages, came into contact 
with other nations, and their language became corrupted 
from its purity, they seem to have been sensible of some 
inconvenience from their old mode of writing : hence 
arose those diacritical points and other contrivances, 
which like the accents and breathings of the Greek Gram- 
marians, have for ever puzzled and rendered intricate — 
now that the Greek and Hebrew are dead languages, — 
that which they were at first intended to explain. 

5. Alphabetical Writing, as used hy the Greeks and other 
ancient and modern nations. 

The last step in this progressive art was now to be 
made : to insert vowels between the consonants of which 
the Hebrew tongue consisted. When this was done, the 
art of Alphabetic Writing was attained : the gulf which 
writers are pleased to describe as existing between the lite- 
rate and the illiterate state was now for ever closed. First 
the Greeks, afterwards the Romans, and, following them, 
all the present nations of the earth have adopted this 
noble art ; and even the Chinese have, in writing foreign 
names, been obliged to conform in part to a system which 
prevails over all the rest of the world. 

It remains for future ages to determine whether in 
the universe of mind and matter other improvements 
of this art remain still to be made. It is useless to 
dive into the future, let us rather enquire into the past, 
if by chance we may discover any data which will 
further illustrate the particular subject of this work. 



28.] ALPHABETIC WRITING. 261 



XOTE i 

The following extract from Dr Wall's Inquiry into the origin of alphabetic 
writing will serve to make the present subject more intelligible. 

" The characters employed in writing are of two kinds : 1 . Images, 
or resemblances of external visible objects ; 2. Arbitrary marks. Each 
of these again may be subdivided into two kinds, according as the applica- 
tion of them is direct or metaphorical. However the subdivision of arbi- 
trary marks is less noticed, because both applications of them are arbi- 
trary, and the metaphor does not strike our imagination as strongly 
in the use of these, as it does when the signs of the first kind are employ- 
ed. Hence the most usual distribution at present made of the charac- 
ters used in the ideagraphic branch of the art, is into three kinds : 1. 
Images employed as signs of those things of which they are imitations ; 
2. Images metaphorically transferred to being signs of other things ; 3. 
Arbitrary marks. And, pari passu, the writing admitted to have been 
invented by man may be distinguished into three sorts, according to the 
predominance in it of one or other of these three kinds of characters. 

The origin of the invention, in its most general aspect, may, it is 
obvious, be traced to the natural desire of man to give a permanence to 
the expression of his thoughts, so as to render them communicable to 
those separated from him by distance of time or place .... 

As writing commenced with the representation of our ideas of things 
by their likenesses, or by mimetic characters, so the drawing of these 
cons lit ated the most obvious and natural, as well as the first, step in the 
progress of the art. 

One of the earliest intellectual efforts of an ingenious child will be 
found to be an attempt to delineate the visible objects that have most 
forcibly arrested his attention. He does not indeed sketch the outlines 
of these with any ulterior end in view, but is merely led to the occupa- 
tion by the pleasure he immediately derives from it. However this very 
pleasure shows the aptitude of the human faculties to such occupation,and 
the tendency of the mind to exert its energies in this way. Accordingly 
the use of mimetic writing spread widely over the earth ; and specimens of 
it have been found in various parts of the new world as well as of the old : 
in countries so situated that their inhabitants could not possibly have had 
any mutual intercourse, but must each separately and independently 
have arrived at the invention. Traces of this kind of writing have also 



262 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. CHAP. 

been met with, where the circumstances were least favourable to making 
the acquisition, even among nations the most civilized, and in regions 
the most desolate; they were observed by Charlevoix among the sava- 
ges of North America,* and by Stahlenberg in the wilds of Siberia, f " 
pp. 6—8. 



* " Quant aux caracteres, ils n'en avaient point : et ils y suppleaient par des 
especes d'hieroglyphes." — Charlevoix, Journal d'un voyage dans Amerique 
Septentrionale, 4to ed. vol. iii, p. 198. 

f " Bishop Warburton, in his treatise on Hieroglyphs, states that mimetic cha- 
racters were found by Stahlenberg, graven upon rocks, in the province of Permia, 
and near the river Jenesci," that is, on the confines of Siberia, and also in the 
heart of the country : and he has given a drawing of the characters from that 
writer. — London ed. of 1811, vol. iv, p. 119. As I have not had access to the 
original work, I insert the fact in my text on the authority of the bishop. 



29.] ALPHABET UNKNOWN TO THE EGYPTIANS. 263 



CHAPTER 29. 

Alphabetic wetting unknown to the Egyptians and 
consequently, to moses. 

In developping the gradual formation of the present 
system of writing through the five stages mentioned in the 
last chapter, I have rather followed an ideal than a real 
connection between those stages, for it would be difficult 
to point out any nation in the world, among whom they 
have all existed in succession. Great improvements are 
generally slow in their growth, unless the people, who 
undergo them are acted upon by some external causes. 
The change from Picture-writing to Hieroglyphics would 
probably be easy to an intelligent and improving people ; 
and from Hieroglyphics to the Word- writing of the Chinese, 
the transition was, probably, scarcely less obvious. But 
from these ideagraphic modes to the purely arbitrary and 
phonetic system which we call Alphabetic Writing, the 
interval is wide, and it cannot be proved that any nation 
has ever, by its own internal impulses, been able to pass 
it.* The case of the Chinese is a living proof of the truth 
of the principle ; until they abandon the cumbrous system 



* Une seconde cause de confusion fut les figures materielles elles-memes par 
lesquelles on peingit d'abord les pensees, et qui, sousle nom d'meROGLYPHEs ou 
caracteres sacres, furent la premiere invention de 1'esprit. Ainsi, pour avertir 
de l'inondation et du besoin de s'en preserver, Ton avait peint une nacelle, le 
navire Argo ; pour designer le vent, Ton avait peint une aile d'oiseau ; pour 
specifier la saison, le mois, Ton avait peint l'oiseau de passage, 1'insecte, 1'ani- 
mal qui apparaissait a cette epoque ; pour exprimer 1'hiver, on peignit un porc, 



264 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

of inventing or combining a fresh character for every new- 
word, — which is the plan they now follow, — and reduce all 
their vocabulary to a limited number of arbitrary elements 
similar to our letters, we may assert with confidence that 
their literature, whilst it increases in extent, will not equally 
increase in usefulness ; but will ultimately become too 
cumbersome to answer any useful purpose whatever, until 
it sinks beneath its own weight. 

But I have asserted that there is a wide chasm between 
the last stage of ideagraphic writing, and the nearest form 
of a written language that has arbitrary symbols. Let us 
then see what is the case with the Egyptians — for they 
alone of the three ideagraphic nations, by their connection 
with the Hebrews, concern the present enquiry. In 
this part of the subject, I am happy to find my views con- 
firmed by so able a judge as Dr Wall; and shall therefore 
make an extract from his learned work concerning the 
difficulty which attends the later stages, as I have before 
described, in carrying the art of writing to perfection. 

The ideagraphic system of the Chinese lias been now, and that of the 
Egyptians was formerly, such a length of time in use, that it can be 
hardly expected that any specimens of the primitive [i.e. pictural] writing 
of either nation should be still extant; though, from the extreme dura- 
bility of the materials employed in Egypt, it is possible that some of her 
earlier records may have survived the ravages of time.* In A.merica, 
however, at the time of its discovery by the Spaniards, all the writing 



un serpent, qui se plai.sent dans les lieux humides; et la reunion des figures 
avait des sens convenus de phrases et de mots. Mais comme ce sens ne portait 
par lui meme Men de fixe et de precis ; comme le nombre de ces figures et de 
leurs combinaisons devint excessif, et surchargea la memoire, il en resulta 
d'abord des confusions, des explications fausses. Ensuite le genie ayant invente 
l'art plus simple d'appliquer les signes aux sons, dont le nombre est limite, et 
de peindre la parole au lieu des pensees, l'ecriture alphabetique fit tomber en 
desuetude les peintures hieroglyphiques ; et, de jour en jour, leurs significations 
oubliees donnerent lieu a une foule d'illusions, d'equivoques, et d'erreurs. 
Volley, GEuvres Choisis, page 183, ed. Paris. 8vo 1842. 

* " Among the Egyptian legends of which the originals or copies have been 



29.] HIEROGLYPHICS. 26b 

was of the first grade, so that no species of it could have been of very 
ancient origin. That of the Mexicans was decidedly the best, though 
the Peruvians had made a greater progress in arbitrary signs. To 
register events they employed Quijjos, or branches of trees with strings 
tied to them, which were variously coloured and knotted ; and Acosta 
mantained, that by the different combinations of colours and knots 
they could express their thoughts as fully and accurately as we can by 
means of letters.* But there is strong reason to think, as Robertson, 
in his History of America, has justly remarked, that the Spanish 
Jesuit was mistaken in the estimate he had formed of the utility and 
perfection of these Qnipos, and that they were little better than numeri- 
cal scores, the knots indicating numbers ; and the colours, the subjects 



brought to Europe, there may be observed groups of images, whether mimetic or 
metaphoric, with writing of a different kind placed in vertical lines over their 
heads. Even some of the specimens given by Champollion in his Precis, appear 
to be of this nature, and it is likely that many such could be pointed out by any 
one who had access to the Description de l' Egypte. The apparent difference 
of the writing in these renders it probable, that the time of making the insculp- 
tures was also different ; and that the probability would approach almost to a cer- 
tainty, if the records were even near so old as M. Champollion supposed. If that 
were really the case, the mimetic characters of the groups must have b^en 
originally pictural, and in process of time, when the art had improved, the other 
writing was superadded to supply the deficiencies of expression in the older style. 
What corroborates this view of the nature of the leg mds in question is, that Clem- 
ens of Alexandria, in his very remarkable account of the hieroglyphic system of 
the^ Egyptians, mentions a direct mimetic kind of writing \j] fjuev KvpioXo- 
yelrai Kara fitfirjo-iv], i. e. a pictural kind. Now it is to be observed that it 
is not of pictural characters he there speaks, bat of pictural writing, in which 
of course those characters must have predominated, and, if specimens of such 
writing existed in his day, the most probable way of accounting for their disap- 
pearance would seem to be that above suggested." 

* " Son quipos unos memoriales, o registros hachos de ramales, en que diversos 
nudos, y diversas colores significan diversas cosas. Es increyble lo que en este 
modo alcancaron ; porque quanto los libros pueden dezir de historias, y leyes, y 
ceremonias, y cuentas de negocios, todo esso suplen los Quipos tan puntualmente 
que adrnira.— Porque para diversos generos, como de guerra, de govierno, de 
tributos de ceremonias, de tierras, avia diversos Quipos" o ramales; y en cada 
manojo destos, tantos nudos, y nudicos, y hilillos atados : unos colorados : otros 
verdes : otros azules : otros blancos : y finalmente tantas diferentius, que assi como 
nosotros de veynte quatro letras, guisando las in diferentes maneras, sacamus 
tanta infinidad de vocablos, assi estos de sUs nudos y colores sacavan innume- 
rabiles significationes de cdsis,"— Acosta, lib. vi, cap. 9. 

34 



266 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

to which the reckoning was applied. Besides, the signs under consi- 
deration not being drawn or insculpted upon any surface, the registers 
formed of them could not, except in a very loose sense of the word, be 
called ivritiny. The pictural characters of the Peruvians were better 
entitled to thai denomination, but they were very gross and imperfect. 
In such characters the Mexicans had greatly the superiority, and inter- 
spersed among these they employed other graphic figures of an arbitrary 
kind to represent objects of thought not perceptible to the sight. Still 
their writing could only be considered as an improved species of the 
first grade, for the prominent feature of it was picture representa- 
tion of evsnts.^y 

Where men have not advanced beyond this first stage of the art, they 
readily exchange it for alphabetic writing, when they come within reach 
of that very superior method of communication; what they have had no 
great difficulty in acquiring, they do not particularly prize, and it is at 
once given up for a better system. But the case is very different with 
respect to those nations, which had proceeded through the different grades 
of ideagraphy to its final state, before they got an opportunity of making 
the exchange in question : the more cumbrous and difficult of acquire- 
ment their several systems have proved to be, with so much the 
greater obstinacy will they be found to have clung to them. In fact it 
is a very general principle of our nature to value things, not so much 
by their intrinsic worth, as by the difficulty of acquirement, even when 
that difficulty is in itself a proof of imperfection. National pride and 
prejudice also enlist themselves in favour of an old established practice 
associated with the earliest recollections of a people, and render the 
mind averse to instituting a fair inquiry into the merits of a foreign 
system. But besides the common causes of undue bias w T hich must 
have equally affected the Egyptians and Chinese, separate ones may also 



f "A sp^iidid collection of the Mexican Hieroglyphs has been published in 
London, 1830, m seven folio volumes. The name of Augustine Aglio is that selec- 
ted for the title page ; which appears rather strange, if it be true that the materials 
were collected and the engravings executed under the direction and at the expence 
of Lord Viscount Kingsborough. It is said that the publication cost his Lordship 
near thirty thousand pounds; and the credit of the "undertaking is very generally 
given to him, not only here, but also on the continent. In Paris M. Klaprotl^ 
I perceive, dedicated his Examen Critique (of the hieroglyphic labours of the late 
M. Champollionj to this munificent patron of the arts. 



29.] HIEROGLYPHICS. 267 

be assigned. That which peculiarly operated on the former people was 
superstition; and how powerful an influence it exerted in the continua- 
tion of their unwieldy method, is evident from this consideration. — that 
they could not have been entirely ignorant of the great superiority of 
alphabetic writing : as a conquered people they must have become 
acquainted with much of its nature, and of the advantage of adopting 
it, at all events from the commencement of the Ptolemean Dynasty ; 
and yet five hundred years after this knowledge had been forced upon, 
them, Clemens Alexandrimis speaks of the different species of Egyptian 
ideagraphy, intermixed indeed with a phonetic use of signs, as still 
practised in his day. The characters of their principal kind of writing 
they connected in some way with religion, and called them sacred; in 
consequence of which they never gave up the use of them, or adopted a 
mode of writing purely alphabetical, until they changed tlHr creed.* 
It was on account of these characters having been originally confined to 
religious uses, and insculped in stone, that the Greeks distinguished 
them by a name implying both particulars, and called them hieroglyphs ; 
but the w r ord is now taken in a more general sense, and applied to 
ideagraphs of every kind, without reference to either the use made, the 
surface on which they are drawn, or the country they are found in. 

Of the natural tendency of the mind to the first species of writing, 
some proofs have been already given; and an additional one is, I 
conceive, supplied by man's frequent recurrence to it after all neeessiiy 
for the expedient had ceased ; 

Natuvam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. 

Thus, at the present day, there are primers filled with prints or 
imperfect delineations of the transactions described in their texts; the 
imagination being thereby called in to the assistance of the judgment to 
help the young and illiterate to understand writing of a more artificial 
construction. Aud in former times when reading was a far more diffi- 
cult operation than it now is, there was a still more general application 
of pietural characters to this purpose. In order, therefore, to judge of 

c 
* "Although Clemens includes the employment of hieroglyphs as letters in 
his account of the different kinds of Egyptian writing, yet he does not male 
mention of any kind purely alphabetic. The Egyptians, therefore, had no such 
writing till after his age, and the oldest they could have had was the Graeco- 
Coptic. But all the remains of this writing which have come down to our times, 
were evidently the productions of Christians." 



268 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

the antiquity of an Egyptian record by the appearance in it of such 
characters, there is a caution to be observed. Should they be found, 
in a large proportion, in the body of an insculpture, the hieroglyphs 
would be of the very oldest kind ; but when they occur, not in the text, 
but in accompanying tablets, that is, when they are introduced, not 
from necessity, but merely for illustraction, they are then compatible 
with writing of a much more recent date. Accordingly, they appear in 
this way in great numbers of rolls of papyrus, which, though probably 
the very oldest MSS. now extant, were yet written at a time when 
Egyptian ideagraphy had arrived at the most advanced stage of its 
improvement. 

It has been inferred by Dr Wall that the ancient Egyptians 
never advanced beyond the ideagraphic system of writing, 
which we call Hieroglyphics. If so, the Israelites, at the 
Exode, had no knowledge of what we now term written 
characters, but only of Hieroglyphics, such as they had 
seen in Egypt. Whatever, therefore, Moses wrote must 
have been written in hieroglyphics ; the two tables of stone 
were written in hieroglyphics, and consequently the Book 
of the law, or the Pentateuch, must have been compiled in 
a later age. The truth of these deductions will of course 
depend on the soundness of the premises, that the writing 
of the ancient Egyptians was not alphabetic, but consisted 
of hieroglyphics only. 

To investigate this subject fully, would require more time 
and space than the limits of this work allow ; and yet the 
conclusion to which the premises lead, is so important, 
that the subject cannot altogether be dismissed without 
consideration. I shall therefore endeavour to arrange as 
intelligibly as possible, the reasons which lead to the infe- 
rence that the art of alphabetic writing was unknown to 
the ancient Egyptians until about the year 700 before the 
Christian era. 

1. Positive testimony of ancient authors to a peculiar 
character of writing among the Egyptians. 

The most early historian who has written about the 



29.] HIEROGLYPHICS. 269 

ancient /Egyptians is Herodotus ; but it unfortunately 
happens that his notice of their system of writing is remarka- 
bly brief. In the 36th chapter of the second book of his 
History is the following passage : 

Tpa/JLfjLCura ypdcfrovcTL Kal Xoyl^ovcn tyr)<$>acn, ' EWrjves fiev diro tcjv 
apLcrrepcov eirl ra Be^td fyepovres ttjv %elpa, AlyvTrriot Be airb rwv 
Befyoyv eirl rd apcarepd' real iroLevvres ravra avroi fiev <f>acri eiri 
Be£id iroieeiv, "EXkrjvas Be eir' apiarepd. Ai§a(Tioi<JL Be ypdfifMaac 
Xpeovrai, Kal rd puev avroov Ipd, rd Be BrjfjLOTitcd KaXeerai. 

The Greeks write letters and calculate with balls [probably the abacus] 
guiding the hand from left to right, but the Egyptians from right to 
left : and, doing this, they argue that it is they who do it to the right, 
and the Greeks to the left. They use two kinds of characters, one of 
which is called the " sacred," the other the " common character." 

Nothing can be gathered from these words, to decide 
the question whether the Egyptians used ideagraphic or 
alphabetic writing. We learn no more than that they wrote 
from right to left and had two kinds of writing, but it is 
not said that these kinds differed in principle, the one from 
the other. 

In the Historical Library of Diodorus Siculus, who lived 
400 years after Herodotus, is the following passage : 

UaiBevovcn Be tovs viovs ol fiev tepees ypd/xfiara BiTTa, rd re lepd 
KaXovfieva Kal rd KOivorepav eyovra rrjv pbdOrjaiv. [I, 81.] 

The Egyptians teach their children two kinds of letters, those called 
sacred, and those of a more popular nature. 

The Latin historian Tacitus lived about 80 years after 
Diodorus. A passage which occurs in his annals, book 
ix, chap. 14, certainly seems to shew that the writer con- 
sidered the Egyptian writing to be ideagraphic. 

" Primi per figuras ania-ialium iEgyptii sensus mentis effingebant (ea 
antiquissima monumenta memorise humanse impressa saxis cernuntur) ; 
et literarum semet inventores perhibent." 

The Egyptians, first of mankind, represented the thoughts of the mind 



270 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

by means of the figures of animals (those most ancient monuments of 
man's remembrance which may still be seen, engraven on the rocks) ; 
and they give out that they were the inventors of letters. 

Of what letters ? it may be asked. Of the letters which 
the historian had mentioned, namely the figures of animals 
whic h in Egypt were made to discharge the offices of let- 
ters. The latter part of the sentence explains the former, 
unless it is supposed to describe a further invention, namely 
that of alphabetic writing also, in addition to Hierogly- 
phica. In whichever sense we take it, the sentence is 
equally applicable to our purpose. Tacitus attributes to 
the Egyptians the invention of hieroglyphics and considers 
them to have been the precursors of alphabetic characters. 

About a hundred years after the time of Tacitus, i. e. 
about A. D. 200, lived Clement of Alexandria, one of the 
Fathers. It appears, from a famous passage in his works, 
that the Egyptians still practised the art of hieroglyphical 
writing ; and it is remarkable that though Clement gives 
us a tolerably minute description of its different kinds, he 
describes no purely alphabetical system at all, as current in 
Egypt at that time. 

AvrUa ol Trap Alyvrrrioi^ rratBeuofievoL, rrpwrov fiev rrdvrcov rrjv 
AlyvTTTicov ypa/JL/ndrcov jxedoBov eK\xavQdvovai, rrjv emo-roXoypa^iKr/v 
jcaXovjjLevrjv, Bevrepav Be rrjv lepariKTjV, fj %pwvrai ol lepoypafjufidrecs • 
vardrrjv Be teal reXevralav rrjv lepoyXvfyiKrjV • r)<; r) \xev ecrri Bid rcov 
rrpcorcov <TTOiyeL(£>v KvpioXoyiKr) • r) Be av/jb/3oXcKr} • rr)<; Be av/jb/SoXtKr]^ 
r) fjuev KvptoXoyelrai Kara /xlfMrjaiv • r) 8' cocrwep rporriKcos ypd(f>erat * 
r) Be dvTi/cpvs dXXrjyopelrai Kara rtvas alviypiovs. "HXlov y ovv ypa- 
yfrat ftovXo/jLevoc , kvkXov iroiovai • <re\r)vr}V Be, cr'xfjf.ia fjbrjvoeLBe 1 ;, Kara 
to KvpioXoyovfxevov e75o?. TporriKtos Be, Kar oiKetorrjra fxerdyovres 
Kal fieranOevres • rd B', e^aXXdrrovre<; * rd Be TroXXa%co<; fiera- 
tr^jjiarl^ovre^, yapdrrovaiv * rovs y ovv rcov ftacriXecov erraivovs 
OeoXoyov/juevois puvOois rrapaBiBbvres, dvaypdfyovai Bla rcov dvayXvcpcov. 
Toy Be Kara alviyfibv^ rplrov e'/Sou? Bely/ma ecrrco roBe • rd [lev yap 
rcov dXXcov dcrrpcov, Bla rrjv iropelav rrjv Xo^rjv, ocpetov acbjxacTiv 



29.] HIEROGLYPHICS. 2/1 

aireiKatpv • tov Be rfkiov tg5 tov KavOdpov • eiretSr) fcvfcXorepes i/c rfj<; 
/3oe/<29 ovOov a^fjfjua Trkacrd/Aevos, avrnrpooooTros fcvXlvSec." 

The educated amongst the Egyptians, immediately learn, first of all, 
the system of Egyptian letters called Epistolographic, secondly the Hie- 
ratic, which the sacred scribes make use of, and last, the perfect kind 
the Hieroglyphic. One species of the last is that which speaks directly 
by means of the first elements [or letters] ; another kind is symbolic. 
Of the symbolic, one kind speaks directly by means of imitation, a second 
kind is written as if metaphorically, and a third, on the contrary, allego- 
rizes by means of certain enigmas. 

Thus, when they wish to describe the sun, they make a circle, and 
for the moon a lunar figure; these are instances of the direct kind. 

In the metaphoric species they transfer and change according to 
peculiarities ; or they alter them, or change their forms in many ways 
and so engrave them. 

Thus they consign the praises of their kings to theologic descriptions, 
and carve them in anaglyphs. Of the enigmatic kind let this be an 
instance : They represent the other stars, on account of their oblique 
courses, by the bodies of serpents, but the sun by that of the beetle, 
because it makes a round-ball of cow dang and rolls it up in an aspect 
facing the sun. 

Although this description appears at first sight to be 
almost as obscure as the original subject, which it is 
adduced to explain, yet its mazes may be threaded, and a 
tolerably good idea formed of the various kinds of writing 
which, according to Clemens of Alexandria, were in use 
among the Egyptians. 

In the first place there were three principal divisions, 
the Epistolographic, the Hieratic or Sacerdotal, and the 
Hieroglyphic. I shall be somewhat anticipating the order 
of the subjects, but it will simplify the matter to the reader, 
if I state that these three grand divisions have been recog- 
nized by those w T ho in our own times have explored the 
ruins in Egypt, with a view to elucidating this very matter. 
It is admitted by almost all who have written on the 
subject, that these three grand divisions of the Egyptian 



272 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [cHAl\ 

t 

writing are based on the same principles, and differ only 
in the greater or less perfection with which the characters 
are delineated. In the Hieroglyphic style, the figures 
retain their natural shape with tolerable accuracy, whilst 
the Sacerdotal writing is more cursive, and the Epistolo- 
graphic or common writing of the country is loosely 
delineated and very far removed from the original symbols. 
A ready instance of the difference between the three kinds 
may be found in our own writing. We have the old 
Gothic character, the Roman letters, in which books are 
generally printed, and the cursive letters found in 
manuscripts. 

The identity of the three kinds of Egyptian characters, 
— I mean identity of principle, — has been generally 
admitted by the best authorities. Dr Young's remarks 
upon the subject are as follows : 

The question, however, respecting the nature of the Enchorial character, 
appears to be satisfactorily decided by a comparison of various manus- 
cripts on papyrus, still extant, with each other. Several of these pub- 
lished in the great Description de V Egypte, have always been considered 
as specimens of the alphabetical writing of the Egyptians, and certainly 
have as little appearance of being imitations of visible objects, as any of 
the characters of this inscription [the Bosetta inscrij)tion~], or as the old 
Arabic or Syriac characters, to which they bear, at first sight, a consi- 
derable resemblance. But they are generally accompanied by tablets, or 
delineations of certain scenes, consisting of a few visible objects, 
either detached or placed in certain intelligible relations to each other ; 
and we may generally discover traces of some of these objects, among 
the characters of the text that accompanies them. A similar correspon- 
dence between the text and the tablets is still more readily observed in 
other manuscripts, written in distinct hieroglyphics, slightly yet not 
inelegantly traced, in a hand which appears to have been denoted by 
the term Hieratic; and by comparing with each other such parts of the 
text of these manuscripts as stand under tablets of the same kind, we 
discover, upon a very minute examination, that every character of the 
distinct hieroglyphics has its corresponding trace in the running hand ; 
some times a mere dash or line, but often perfectly distinguishable, as a 



29.] HIEROGLYPHICS. 273 

coarse copy of the original delineation, and always alike when it answers 
to the same character. The particular passages, which establish this 
identity, extending to a series of above ten thousand characters, have 
been enumerated in the Museum Criticum ; they have been copied in 
adjoining lines, and carefully collated with each other ; and their number 
has been increased by a comparison with some yet unpublished rolls of 
papyrus lately brought from Egypt. A few specimens from different 
MSS. will be sufficient to show the forms through which the original 
representation has passed, in its degradation from the sacred character, 
through the hieratic, into the epistolographic or common running hand 
of the country. Suppl. of Exc. Beit, article Egypte, p. 5-1. 

A question here occurs, which can be answered without 
much difficulty. How has it arisen that Herodotus and 
Diodorus Siculus mention only two kinds of Egyptian 
writing, whilst Clement says that in his time there were 
three ? It may be replied that Herodotus perhaps consider- 
ed the Sacerdotal and Common characters to be the same ; 
for they are not very different in form, having both a strong 
tendency to a cursive form. Or it is very likely that the 
third species may have been a further development of the 
other two during the three hundred years that intervened 
between the age of Clement and of Diodorus. 

Returning then to the description, before quoted from 
Clement : we find that he says nothing of the Epistologra- 
phic, and Hieratic modes, but confines himself to the Hiero- 
glyphic as being the most important, and in fact, if our 
former remarks are correct, the parent of 3 the other two. 

Clement, then, tells us that of the Hieroglyphic writing 
there are two subdivisions ; 1. that which is significant by 
means of the first elements : and 2. the symbolic. Of these 
two kinds, he unfortunately omits to describe the former, 
and confines all his attention to a description of the latter, 
the symbolic style. As the name symbolic gives a tolerably 
accurate idea of what is intended to be signified, namely 
Hieroglyphics specifically so called, and as its subdivisions, 
the direct, the metaphoric, and the enigmatic, are mere 

35 



274 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

modes of the symbolic, it can answer no good purpose to 
occupy our time in further illustrating them. The whole of 
the question turns on the meaning of that subdivision 
of hieroglyphical writing, which speaks by means of 'the first 
elements. After many years of doubt, during which different 
authors have expressed opposite opinions concerning the 
meaning which Clement of Alexandria intended to convey 
by this phrase, it is now generally admitted, that the first 
elements are the first letters of the words : and that this 
mode is, in fact, the link by which Hieroglyphics are con- 
nected with the alphabetic system. It is a remarkable con- 
firmation of this opinion that a rude sort of alphabetic 
writing, founded on the first letter of each word, has actu- 
ally been discovered among the hieroglyphics of Egypt ; 
but every instance of this sort is so recent as to confirm, 
without a doubt, the theory that the alphabetic principle 
was first introduced into Egypt in consequence of its 
intercourse with Greece, and did not exist even in the tenth 
century before Christ, much less at the far earlier period 
when Moses led the Israelites through the deserts of 
Arabia. 

According to this rude alphabetic mode, a word might 
be expressed by a series of objects, the first letters of whose 
names spelled the word required. Thus the word ' house' 
might be represented by five pictured images, Hen, Owl, 
Urn, Stork, Egg, because the first letters of these names, 
h, o, u, s, e, make up the word required. This mode will 
readily occur to the mind of the reader as the basis of those 
spelling books for children, in which each letter of the 
alphabet is connected with the name of some natural object, 
as C for cat, D for dog, H for Horse, and many others. 

The cumbersome nature of this mode of writing is appa- 
rent : it has little in common with the modern alphabets 
by which thought may be transferred to paper almost as 



29.] HIEROGLYPHICS. 275 

quickly as it arises in the mind, and quite as quickly as it 
can be expressed in words. There are, moreover, other 
features of this system, as it prevailed among the Egyptians, 
which shew plainly that it was confined in its use, and only 
applied where other modes, then known, failed to be appli- 
cable at all. It appears by an inspection of the Egyptian 
monuments that proper names alone are expressed by these 
picture letters, and that each name so written is surrounded 
by an oval line, as a guide to the reader that the figures 
enclosed within the line must be read not hieroglyphic ally, 
but according to the first letter of each object's name. 
Again, as the same letter may be represented by a variety 
of objects, all of which have that letter standing the first 
in the name which expresses it, the result is that the same 
word may be expressed by a variety of pictured objects 
each different from the others, and this w T ould cause much 
distraction to the reader's mind, and much uncertainty in 
the subject represented. This difficulty may be illustrated 
by a plain example in English. Whilst one writer might 
represent the word house by the five objects before descri- 
bed, hen for h, owl for o, urn for u, stork for s, and egg 
for e, another might represent the same word by a differ- 
ent combination, as for example ; Hippopotamus, Ostrich, 
Unicom, Sheep, Elephant. Neither is this an imaginary 
theory ; for such various modes actually occur on the 
monuments of Egypt, where the names of PsaiTimitiohus, 
Cleopatra, Berenice, Ptolemy and other princes are written 
with various pictured objects, and it is discovered by a 
patient investigation and comparison of these that many 
of the letters have three, four, six, and even a dozen cor- 
responding objects by which they may be represented. 
Whether the Egyptians possessed any orthographical rules 
by which the use of these figures was regulated, has not 
yet been discovered. 

Still, this difficulty beins; removed, so many still remain 



276 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

to impede the general use of this system of writing that it 
must ever be limited, as it was in Egypt, to a very narrow 
sphere of use, and furnishes no argument against the prin- 
ciple for which we are now contending, that a hieroglyphi- 
cal, and not an alphabetical, mode of writing, prevailed in 
Egypt, long after the time of Moses and the Exodus. 

2. Absence of all mention of phonetic or alphabetic 
legends, in the writings of the ancients. 

The cursory manner in which Clement of Alexandria 
dismisses in a few words his account of that kind of Egyp- 
tian writing which is acknowledged to have been phonetic, 
is a circumstance much to be regretted. Still this very 
omission is not without its significancy, and it strongly 
militates against the supposition which has within the last 
few years been advanced, that the greater part, or certainly 
a considerable part, of Egyptian writing was alphabetic. 

The supporters of the theory now in vogue {says Dit Wall, p. 20} 
endeavour to account for the ancients not having transmitted to us a 
single phonetic legend, by the remark, that alphabetic writers would be 
more struck with icleagraphic ones, and, therefore, more likely to record 
sueh. This explanation very imperfectly accounts for their total omis- 
sion of phonetic examples, and it does not at all account for their giving 
the writing the general character of being symbolic or icleagraphic, if 
the greater part of it really was, as is now supposed, of quite a different 
nature. 

2. Present appearance of the Egyptian monuments and 
various opinions about them. 

Under this head might be comprised a full and complete 
investigation of every inscription which now exists ; but 
we must be content to limit our observations to the infe- 
rences which have been drawn by others, who have made 
the Egyptian remains an especial subject of their study. 
An antecedent argument that the Egyptian hieroglyphics 
describe ideas and not words, may clearly be derived from 



92.] HIEROGLYPHICS. 2/7 

the general opinion of mankind, prevalent over the whole 
world, concerning their nature. This opinion is certainly 
vague, because it cannot be traced to any better source 
than the general appearance which the Egyptian hierogly- 
phics present to the eye of the beholder. In order to 
appreciate this kind of internal evidence it is necessary to 
visit the soil of Egypt, or at least to inspect the large col- 
lections of Egyptian remains which enrich the museums of 
different cities. The impression left on the mind by such 
a process is certainly to the effect that those sculptures 
denote pictural ideas and not words or letters. And every 
attempt to maintain the contrary proposition has hitherto 
ended in a confirmation of the original opinion, always ex- 
cepting the foreign words before mentioned. The opin- 
ions of different writers may here with propriety be 
introduced. 

The first of these is Dr Young, who started the theory 
that perhaps the Egyptian hieroglyphical characters may 
have the force of letters, and designate words not ideas. The 
premature death of this talented man cut short his investig- 
ations almost immediately after he had pointed out the way 
in which he intended to pursue them, and left the field 
open for Mr Champollion : as the enquiries of this latter 
gentleman have at two different periods led him to put 
forth views rather conflicting with each other, it does not 
appear that much real progress has been made in this 
difficult subject. In 1812, he published an essay at Gren- 
oble entitled iC De L' Ecriture Hieratique des anciens 
Egyptiens, " in which he expressed certain opinions, which, 
not having an opportunity of consulting the original essay, 
I quote from the little volumes, '[ Egyptian antiquities, voL 
ii, p. 348, published by the Society for diffusing useful 
knowledge. 

1. That the writing of Egyptian MSS. of the second kind (the hiera- 
tic) is not alphabetic. 



278 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

2. That this second system (of writing) is only a simple modification 
of the hieroglyphic system, and differs from it only in the form of the 
signs. 

3. That the second kind (of writing) is the kie ratio of the Greek 
authors, and must be considered as an hieroghjphical tachygraphy. 

4. Lastly that the hieratic characters (and consequently those from 
which they are derived) are signs of things and not of sounds. 

There is little doubt, we think we may say none, that to the time of 
Dr Young's discovery, M. Charapollion was convinced, as he expresses 
himself, that the ei hieroglyphics are signs of tilings and not of words." 
In his letter to M. Dacier of September 22, 1822, on the contrary, he 
expressed himself in the commencement of his letter in the following 
manner : — " I may venture to hope that I have succeeded in shewing 
that both the /lie ratio land demotic (enchorial) writing are not entirely 
alphabetical, as had been generally supposed, but often also ideagraphio, 
like the hieroglyphics themselves, that is to say, that they represent 
sometimes the ideas, and sometimes the sounds of a language. I think 
I have at last succeeded, after ten years of assiduous research, in bring- 
ing together data almost complete on the general theory of these two 
kinds of writing, on the origin, the nature, the form, and the number 
of their signs, the rules of their combinations by means of those among 
these signs which have functions purely logical or grammatical, and in 
having thus laid the first foundation of what we may call the grammar 
and dictionary of these two modes of writing which are employed in the 
great number of monuments whose interpretation will throw so much 
light on the general history of Egypt." Not a word is here said of 
the Grenoble publication; nor does the author any where else in this 
letter make the slightest allusion, that we can find, to his former opinion 
on the nature of the hieroglyphics. The author goes on to state, that 
the subject of this letter is the pure hieroglyphics, " which, forming an 
exception to the general nature of the signs of this kind of writing, were 
endowed with the power of expressing the sounds of words, and have 
been employed on the public monuments of Egypt in recording the titles, 
names, and surnames of the Greek and Roman sovereigns, who succes- 
sively governed it. 

Two years after the last date, namely in 1824, M. 
Champollion published his great work "Precis du systeme 
hieroglyphi que &c." in which he reviews the whole subject 
which for so many years had occupied his attention. 



29.] HIEROGLYPHICS. 279 

The author's conclusion (continues the writer of the " Egyptian Anti- 
quities/') as to the nature of what is called Ineroglyphical writing is 
this : — " The Egyptians, possessing three different modes of expressing 
their ideas, employed in the same text that mode which seemed best 
adapted to the representation of a given idea. If the object of an idea 
could not be clearly indicated either by the direct mode of a figurative, 
(pictorial) character, or tropically (indirectly) by a symbolical character, 
the writer had recourse to phonetic characters, which readily accom- 
plished either the direct or indirect representation of the idea, by the 
conventional mode of exhibiting the word which is the sign of this idea. 
Consequently the series of phonetic characters was the most efficient 
and the most common part of the Egyptian system of writing ; by them 
particularly the most metaphysical ideas, the most delicate shades of 
language, the inflexions, and, finally, all grammatical forms, could be 
represented with almost as much perspicuity as they are by means of the 
simple alphabet of the Phoenicians or Arabs. 
It follows from all that has been said, and is indubitably proved, — 

1. That there was no Egyptian writing altogether representative 
(pictorial), as the Mexican has been supposed to be. 

2. That there does not exist on the monuments of Egypt any regular 
writing altogether ideagraphic, that is, composed altogether of figurative 
and symbolical characters. 

3. That primitive Egypt did not employ a mode of writing altogether 
phonetic. 

4. But that the hieroglyphic mode of writing is a complex system — 
a system, figurative, symbolical and phonetic, in the same text, in the 
same phrase, T would almost say in the same word." 

This conclusion is certainly not very flattering to those 
who may hereafter enter upon the investigation of the 
Egyptian hieroglyphics. But it is sufficient to shew that, 
according to both the theories which M. Champollion has 
adopted, the Egyptian writing was either very partially 
alphabetic, or even not alphabetic at all. 

The same inference has been drawn by ethers, who, 
since the time of Champollion, have examined the Egyp- 
tian monuments. 

Zoega, a learned Italian, by studying the obelisks and 
other Egyptian monuments in Italy, made out a list of 958 



280 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

different hieroglyphical characters. To suppose that these 
represented letters is an absurdity ; for no known language 
ever contained even so many as 100 elementary characters 
such as we call letters, and, if the 958 represented words — 
even monosyllables — or simple ideas, which are represented 
by words, the language was clearly not alphabetic. 

Even in the short compass of the Rosetta stone, in four- 
teen lines, M. Champollion detected no less than 166 
different characters to which the same observation applies, 
that they are too many to be letters, and if they represent 
words, the language is not alphabetic. 

Again in all the twenty lines, of which the hieroglyphical 
part of the Rosetta stone consisted, when unmutilated, 
there were about 2218 characters; and in the portion of 
the stone, giving the same meaning in the Greek language, 
the number of letters altogether was 7290. It appears 
then, that if the hieroglyphical characters were letters, the 
Egyptian language could " express as much as the Greek 
in less than one-third of the number of the characters.* " 
This is surely a strong reason for believing that the 
hieroglyphics denote ideas or words, and not letters, and 
it is strengthened by an observation made by M. Cham- 
pollion himself, that many of the characters in the hierog- 
lyphic text of the Rosetta stone are purely figurative or 
pictorial, as is manifest even by their shape. Thus he 
recognized, in the Greek, the following words, temple, 
image, statue, child, asp, and column, all of which, in the 
hieroglyphical part of the Rosetta inscription, were repre- 
sented by their corresponding figures, and not by words 
formed out of letters. 

* Egyptian Antiquities, vol. ii, p. 368. 



29.] HIEROGLYPHICS. 2£] 

4. Sameness of the written but difference of the spoken 
language in the various parts of ancient Egypt, 

It has been observed, in our notice of the Chinese lan- 
guage that its written characters can be understood by all 
the tribes and nations, notwithstanding the great differences 
of dialect which prevail in that vast empire. But it appears, 
from the sameness of the hieroglyphical inscriptions in 
Egypt, even in provinces many hundred miles apart, that 
the state of things was precisely the same. The same 
hieroglyphics are found on the borders of Ethiopia, as 
in the Delta near the sea ; yet it is certain that the dialects 
must have been numerous and differed much from one 
another in so large a tract of territory. As the inscriptions 
were of course intended to be read, it is a natural infer- 
ence that those who spoke different dialects, could all 
read these common inscriptions ; but this can only 
happen, when the characters are ideagraphic ; i. e. when 
they suggest the same ideas to the minds of persons speak- 
ing different languages, for, if the emblems suggested word: 
only and not ideas, they would be intelligible to those onl 
who spoke the language in which those words are fou 
An instance of this may easily be given. If the followL 
inscription were placed in some conspicuous place 

30— 10=20 
it would be intelligible to Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans 
&c. without the least difficulty : but each of these nations 
would read it in a very different manner ; and the word? 
which each employed would be unintelligible to all the 
others. Thus the Englishman would read it 

" Thirty minus ten is equal to twenty." 

The Frenchman would say 

" Trente moins dix egale vingt." &c. 

If therefore inscriptions of this kind should hereafter be 
found in every part of Europe where it was known that 

36 



282 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

the languages varied much, it would be a proof that the 
mode of writing arithmetical subjects was nevertheless 
the same, and consequently ideagraphic. This is the case 
with all the Egyptian hieroglyphics, from one end of Egypt 
to the other, even where it is known that the dialects 
differed much, and so identical is the style of the hierogly- 
phics that it is difficult to determine the age of any of them, 
for they are the same whether they belong to the 200th 
or the 2000th year before Christ.* The writing, therefore, 
of the Egyptians was ideagraphic, and continued so for 
many centuries, with, apparently, no improvement in its 
perspicuity, or alteration of its style, beyond the introduc- 
tion of a phonetic system as we have before described it, 
to express foreign names, the ideas of which would not of 
course form part of their usual train of thought, and 
would therefore have no representative emblem among 
their usual ideagraphic characters. 

5. The introduction of the Greek alphabet into the Coptic, 

or later Egyptian language, shews that there was 

no previous Egypticm alphabet. 

Egypt, though intimately connected by commerce with 
Judaea, and separated from it by a very narrow strip of 
sandy deserts, was later than some of the other ancient 
kingdoms in receiving the doctrines of Christianity. We 
find that, even in the days of Clemens Alexandrinus, who 
died in the beginning of the third century, the Egyptian 
priests continued to maintain their empire over the minds 
of the people, and still practised their mystic ceremonies 
in every part of Egypt. But there had been two powerful 
principles brought into action, which sooner or later were 



* The zodiac of Dendera was supposed to belong to the times of the Pharaohs, 
until an inscription was deciphered which proved it to be of the age of 
Tiberius. 



29.] HIEROGLYPHICS. 283 

certain to destroy effectually the ancient system. The 
dynasty of the Ptolemies, from B. C. 280 to A. D. 1, had 
introduced into Egypt so large a number of Greek settlers 
that a sensible effect was produced on the language and 
habits of the people. It is also said that there were at 
least a hundred thousand Jews, dwelling in Alexandria or 
the neighbouring provinces. The foreign element was 
therefore remarkably powerful, and, as we have seen, the 
ancient hieroglyphical system had long been modified by 
the introduction of initial letters used phonetically and no 
longer ideagraphically. But it was reserved for Christianity 
to effect the total overthrow of the hieroglyphics, and to 
assimilate the literature of Egypt to that of Greece and of 
other nations. The result of this change was the appear- 
ance of a new language, expressed in writing by Grecian 
characters. The Coptic language first appears soon after 
the introduction of Christianity into Egypt; and no books 
exist in the Coptic language, except rituals, books of devo- 
tion, and translations of the Scriptures. 

There are strong grounds for believing that numerous 
words, remaining from the old Egyptian, entered into the 
composition of this dialect ; but it is equally certain that 
the Greek language contributed its share, and perhaps also 
Arabia, which has so often been mixed up with the revolu- 
tions of Egypt, may have furnished a considerable number 
of words and idioms. All this was the natural course of 
events, as similar cases may be cited from almost every 
nation in the world. But why was the Greek alphabet 
selected as the vehicle in which this new language was to 
be conveyed ? If the Egyptian language possessed an 
alphabet of its own, there would be no necessity for the 
adoption of any other. For the same reason, also, the 
older inscriptions of the country could scarcely have 
become unintelligible, as they now are. The gradual 



284 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

change of the idiom would have shewn itself, no doubt, as 
it has done in the English language, but the letters, those 
fixed elements of words, would have been still the same. 
This, however, was not the fact : for the character, in 
,ich all Coptic books were written, is essentially Greek, 
mi as different as can be conceived from all the older 
Egyptian writing, whether inscribed on the public buildings, 
or preserved in the numerous rolls of papyrus, which are 
continually found among the ruins. This is a remarkable 
circumstance ; for there is no gradation between the hiero- 
glyphics and the Coptic MSS. It appears, also, by the 
iscoveries of Champollion, Dr Young, and others, that 
he hieroglyphical system comes much later down than the 
beginning of the Christian era. It therefore existed con- 
smporaneously with the transcription of Coptic manu- 
cripts, each decidedly different from the other. It was 
his difference which prevented a fusion of the two. The 
iieroglyphics were essentially ideagraphic, like the present 
writing of the Chinese. All attempts to combine them 
with an alphabetical system are clumsy and unsuccessful. 
It is possible to express, as the Chinese have done, names by 
the characters which come nearest to the sounds of those 
names ; or, as the Egyptians did, to use initial letters to 
express phonetically those words which they derived from 
their connection with other nations; but the fate which 
befel the Egyptian hieroglyphics, will probably some day 
or other fall upon the bulky and toilsome literature of the 
Chinese, if they should ever be conquered by an European 
nation, whilst at the same time they become Christianized 
by its missionaries. The result will be that an European 
alphabet will be adopted, in which all new books will be 
written, whilst their 260 simple characters with the 80,000 
more complex ones which have been formed out of them, 
will, in seventy years after the change takes place, 



29.] HIEROGLYPHICS. 285 

become as unintelligible as the hieroglyphics. If such 
a revolution ever should be made, the argument on 
which I am now insisting will be as applicable to the 
case of the Chinese as it nov> is to that of the Egyptians. 
Their language, previously to the change, had no alphabet 
of its own, but was ideagraphic, because, when at a later 
date, it appears as decidedly alphabetic, it was obliged 
to borrow from a foreign language the characters which 
were to form its alphabet. 



NOTE. 



Dr Wall seems to have satisfactorily shewn that the phonetic or alphabetic writing 
of the Egyptians was derived fron their intercourse with the Greeks, and he 
supports his view by the authority of Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus. 

We are informed, says he, by Herodotus, that before the reign of 
Psammetichus, all foreigners were excluded from Egypt, but that he, 
having gained the throne by the aid of some Ionian and Carian soldiers 
who had been shipwrecked on the coast, gave them a settlement in the 
country, and had certain Egyptian children committed to their care, to 
be by them instructed in the Greek language, and consequently in the 
Greek mode of writing. The words of the original are as follows : 
Tolon, $€ "Icocri teal TolcTi Kapcn, toIgi (TVVKaT6pya(Ta/jL6VOC<TL avro) 6 

WajjLfjLlTL'XpS SlSciXTL %(bpOV$ ivOtfCrjaCU CLVTIOVS dWrjXcOV TTpCOTOO ryap 

ovroc ev AuyviTTw aWojXcoacrot fcaToiKiadr)<Tav — Kal Br) Kail iralBas 
irapefBake avro cat, AlyvTrrlov?, rr)v 'EWdBa <y\(o<jcrav efc&LSdcr/cea-- 
dac* — Her. lib. ii, c 154. This account of Herodotus is corroborated by 



286 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

Diodorus Siculus, both as to the reign in which the intercourse with 
Greeks began and as to the immediate consequence of that intercourse, 
But the latter historian makes a more direct reference to alphabetic 
writing, as he tells us of the Egyptian, being instructed, not merely in 
the Greek language, but in Greek learning. The following are his words : 

Kal \J¥ajjbfjbr]TL')(o^] (ptXeWyv cov StafyepovTW?, tovs vlovs rrjv 'EWtj- 
viK7]V iSlSa^e iraiBelav. KaOoXov Se irpoiTos tcov /car Ah/virrov 
fiaaCkewv, avew^e rot? aWois eOvecrc ra Kara rrjv aXXrjv y&pav 
i/jL7ropia • Kal 7roWr)v acrcpakeiav to?? KarairKkovcri ^kvois irape'uyeTO. 
01 fxev jap irpb tovtov BwaarevaavTe 1 ;, aveirifiarov tcls %evoi<$ iiroiovv 
rrjv Aljvtttov, tovs fiev cfyovevovres, tous Se KaraSovXovfjLevoL tcjv 
KarairXeovTcov.-f Diod. Sicul. lib. i, cap. 67. 



* Literally translated thus : " But to the Ionians and Carians, who had worked 
with him, Psammitichus gives places to live in, opposite to one another— for these 
first, of a different language, were settled in Egypt— And indeed also he place d 
with them Egyptian boys, to be -taught the Hellenic tongue." 

f Literally translated thus : "And [Psammetichus] being singularly fond of 
the Greeks, taught the children the Greek learning. And in general, he first of 
the Egyptian kings, opened to other nations the ports throughout the rest of the 
country, and afforded much security to strangers who sailed thither. For those 
who ruled before him, made Egypt inaccessible to strangers, slaying some and 
enslaving others, of those who sailed thither. 



30.] CHALDAISMS. 287 



CHAPTER 30. 

Style of the Old Testament the same throughout — because 

all written or compiled at the same time. chaldaisms 

in the early parts op the bible, though not so many 

as in the later books reason op this chaldee 

and Hebrew very similar. 

It may, not without justice, be demanded, that I should 
now reply to an objection which may be made bearing 
reference to the language or style observable in different 
parts of the Old Testament. If that volume was compiled 
and put into its present form all at once after the Baby- 
lonish captivity, its style will certainly exhibit marks of 
uniformity, and also of the corruption, which it necessarily 
underwent by the mixture of Chaldee words and idioms. 
This is a reasonable inference, and I believe that facts will 
both w T arrant the inference, and confirm the supposition 
upon which it is grounded. 

It has been observed by Bishop Tomline as quoted in 
chapter 6 of this work, that 

those who are best acquainted with the original writings of the Old 
Testament, agree that there is a marked difference in the style and lan- 
guage of its several authors ; and one learned man in particular concludes 
from that difference, "that it is certain the five books, which are 
ascribed to Moses, were not written in the time of David, the psalms of 
David in the age of Josiah, nor the prophesies of Isaiah in the time 
of Malachi." 

As the writer of this extract was himself unacquainted 
with the language in which the Old Testament is written, 
the opinion declared in his work, being at second hand, 



288 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

loses much of the value which might otherwise be attached 
to it, and the small value which it possesses, is entirely set 
aside by more decisive evidence to the contrary, coming 
from those who are well acquainted with the original 
Hebrew. Let us then hear the testimony of Dr Wall 
on this subject : 

It is to be observed that never was a human being more venerated by 
his countrymen than this prophet [Moses] was; and that in consequence 
the style introduced by him was closely imitated by all the succeeding 
Hebrew writers. This is very decidedly proved by the fact, that although 
Hebrew continued a living language for nine hundred* years after his 
time, yet there is scarcely more variation of orthography in the different 
parts of the Hebrew Scriptures than if they had been written by 
different authors in the same year. Part of this wonderful identity is 
indeed to be attributed to a cause (of which the remotest suspicion has 
not been hitherto entertained) which shall be explained in my next 
publication ; but the remaining part is quite sufficient to establish the 
reality of the imitation in question, and thereby to account for the con- 
tinuation, through the subsequent Hebrew compositions, of the peculia- 
rities which are found in the Pentateuch, (p. 344.) 

Here is clearly stated the fact that the books of the Old 
Testament are all written in the same style, and the reason 
of this identity is said to be the veneration which the 
Israelites paid to the memory of their great law-giver. 
But, surely, we must not believe that divine teachers, such 
as the Hebrew writers are supposed to have been, would 
write in a style that was in use 900 years ago, to the mani- 
fest detriment of all the existing generation then alive, out 
of regard to a single man, who had been dead for so many 
centuries. I think those who have gone through the 
preceding chapters of this work, will doubt whether the later 



* I hold that Hebrew was a living language sixteen hundred years after the 
time of Moses, and that Moses himself did not speak Hebrew. The passage is 
quoted not on account of these incidental remarks, but only to prove that the 
style and age of Genesis and Malachi are the same. 



30.] CHALDAISMS. 289 

writers had any opportunity of imitating the style of the 
Pentateuch ; for if it was in existence at all, it was certainly 
mislaid and lost, until found by Hilkiah the priest and 
Shebna the scribe in the reign of king Josiah. But, grant- 
ing that it was in public use, it may be doubted whether 
all succeeding writers would copy its style. Dr Wall 
himself was not convinced of it, when he wrote what has 
been quoted above, for, at page 362, w r e find another 
reference to the same subject. 

I have already noticed how very little change took place in Hebrew 
during the 900 years that it continued a living language after the time 
of Mjses. This undoubtedly is to be attributed principally to the venera- 
tion in which the Jewish legislator was held by his countrymen ; but 
part of the effect must be laid to the account of the great fixedness 
and stability of the Shemitic languages. One of them, the Arabic, is 
yet spoken through extensive regions of the world, and now at a distance 
of near 4000 years from Abraham, it still retains a great number of words 
and also the grammatic inflexion of the verbs, the same as they are found 
in Hebrew. 

Here we have a second reason given why the style of 
Malachi is identical with that of Genesis, and though it 
should be admitted that the two reasons are not opposed, 
the one to the other, yet it must ye evident that, if the 
second reason be the true one, the first loses all its force, 
and becomes unnecessary, for if the language of the 
Hebrews was permanent, the later writers could not have 
imitated the idiom of Moses out of reverence for his charac- 
ter, but as a matter of necessity, whether they would or 
not. I therefore set aside both these reasons, because 
they are mere suppositions, and substitute a third reason 
why the style of all the old Testament is the same through- 
out, namely because it was all written at or about the same 
time. 

We may now proceed to notice the second objection 

37 J 



290 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

which might be made to the supposition that the whole of 
the Old Testament was written after the Babylonish capti- 
vity, that not only should its style be proved to be similar 
throughout, but also the whole of it, and not merely the 
later books ought to bear traces of the corruption which it 
suffered in consequence of that great national calamity ; 
in short, we should expect to find Chaldaisms L e. Chaldee 
words and forms of speech, occurring not only in the books 
which are admitted by all to have been written since the 
Babylonish Captivity, but in all the earlier books as well. 
To this observation it is replied that Chaldaisms do actually 
occur^ not only in the later books, but even in the books 
of Moses, though for reasons, which will presently be as- 
signed, instances of Chaldee idioms are brief and few. 

The only instance which we will notice is in connection 
with the name of the Almighty in Genesis i, 1, which, as 
is well known, is D^H^H Elohim, a word in the plural 
number. Dr Gesenius says, in his Thesaurus, that the sin- 
gular of this word never occurs except in poetic language, 
in imitation of the Aramaean [Syrian] languages, or in 
later Hebrew. 

To this Dr Lee in his Hebrew Lexicon (d'TT^M) makes 
the following objection : 

It occurs, however, in Deut. xxxii. 15, 17. Are we to suppose that 
Moses has imitated t/ie Syrians here, or that this exhibits a specimen of 
modern Hebrew ? The word occurs, moreover, again and again in Job, 
who mii:?t have lived as early as the sons of Israel. See my introduction 
to that bouk, § hi. Is it necessary also to suppose, that we have here 
nothing bui modem Hebreio, " V33 TV 7^ a strange god, Dan. xi, 39 ; 
m /&-72 evert/ god, i. e. any god. ib. 37. &c. 

If it had ever occurred to Professor Lee that the Old 
Testament is a continuous compilation, put together in 
more modern times out of original documents, he would 
not have asked the question whether Moses imitated the 
Syrians, but whether he who compiled the Old Testament 



30.] CHALDAISMS. 291 

imitated the Syrians. The answer to this may be given in 
the affirmative. If the whole of the Old Testament was 
compiled, long after the Babylonish captivity, we must not 
infer that chaldaisms would be found in the earlier books ; 
for the pure Hebrew language, such as we have it, may 
perhaps be the language which the Jews spoke immediately 
after the captivity, and the Chaldaic Hebrew may be the 
dialect into which the pure language had degenerated in 
the course of the first hundred, or two hundred years aft^r 
the Jews had returned back to Judaea. But waving this 
point at present, and granting that the Chaldaic idiom 
was introduced into Judaea with the Babylonian captivity, 
we might certainly expect to find Chaldee, i. e. Syriac 
expressions in every part of it, but very rarely, of course, 
in tha early part of the Old Testament, because, as the 
original documents, for the preceding history, had been 
written before the Israelites had come much into contact 
with the Chaldees, it is probable that they would contain 
no Chaldaisms at all, and yet the compiler might be very 
likely to introduce a few in the course of his labour of 
uniting so many fragments into one narrative. 

The occurrence of the singular name of God in Dent, 
xxxii, 15, 17, may therefore be both a Chaldaism and a 
specimen of modern Hebrew, which Dr Lee seems to have 
thought impossible, because he considers Moses to have 
written the Pentateuch as we now r have it. 

The true difficulty is, not to explain why the name of 
God in the singular number occurs in the Scriptures of a 
nation that so rigidly believed in only one god as the Jews, 
but how it is possible that a word expressive of a variety 
of gods could find its way into those books. Professor 
Lee gives us an account, but not an explanation, of 
this matter : 

The plural D'rnN, used for the True God, has given rise to various 
speculations ; some supposing, particularly the elder divines and Huichin- 



92 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

sonians, that the notion of a Trinity in Unity lay concealed in this 
word ; others, again, particularly the Rationalists of modern Germany, 
have thought that vestiges of a very ancient polytheism were discover- 
able in it. Both seem, in this case, to have taken too much for 
granted, viz. that the ancients were guided in their writings by th e 
technical rules of modern grammarians ; and also that they were com- 
plete metaphysicians : neither of which can be maintained, hence both 

are probably false The Rationalists, too, snppose that from the 

occurrence of this word in conjunction with, or separated from, that of 
mn% they can ascertain the fact that the book of Genesis was originally 
composed out of two or more documents : one containing the one word, 
another the other. &c. Gesenius has applied this theory to the book of 
Psalms also; and has actually ascertained that, in some instances, the 
one word occurs more frequently than the other. This theory, as applied 
to Genesis, must necessarily be false, for we are expressly informed, Exod. 
vi, 2, 3, (see also my Prolegomena to Mr Bagster's Poly. Bib. Prol. i, § 
iii, par. ii,) that the word m»T was unknown to the patriarchs :*and the 
probability is, that, if this book is really patriarchal, which I believe to 
be the case, the introduction of this word must have been the work of 
Moses, its authorised editor. In all the other cases, the inquiry can 
afford no useful result. 

To these remarks I have only to reply that every inquiry, 
which leads to fixing an historical fact or removing a 
popular error, is both useful and important. Let it be 
granted that the name of Iao or Jehovah was first intro- 
duced by the revelation of God to Moses. The difficulty 
still remains to account for its being coupled with the 
plural Elohim, as if we should say in English the " Gods 
Jehovah." This would be a remarkable expression, if it 
occurred in the Greek or Latin language ; and yet the 
Greeks and Latins actually believed in a plurality of gods. 
How then is it to be explained ? It may be admitted that 
Jehovah, the specific name of the Israelitish God, was a 
new term, unknown to preceding generations and even to 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob : but the generic term Elohim 
6 gods' could not be a new term, even to a nation, who 
admitted one God only. It may be explained by supposing 



30.] CHALDAISMS. 293 

that the Canaanitish nations, among whom the Israelites 
settled, and whose language they gradually learnt in the 
place of the Egyptian language which they gradually forgot, 
worshipped a variety of gods, whom they expressed collec- 
tively under the name of Elohim 'the gods/ According 
to this view, the original documents of the early part of 
the Hebrew Scriptures contained the expression Jehovah 
Elohim " the Gods Jehovah," which was accurately copied 
by the later compiler, though it was sometimes, and parti- 
cularly in more modern times, modified into the singular 
number, which was far more consistent with the peculiar 
monotheism of the Israelites. 

Thus then the occurrence of the name of God in the 
singular number, at Deut. xxxii, 15. 17, and elsewhere, 
may be, as Gesenius supposes, a Chaldaism, introduced 
probably by the compiler. But Dr Lee himself shews 
that it is in many cases difficult to say whether the expres- 
sion is a Chaldaism or a genuine Hebraism. In his Hebrew 
Grammar, art. 223, 6, [page 264 of the edition, 1827] he 
says of the expressions he hath called thee Isaiah, liv, 6, and 
thy being created, Ezek. xxviii, 15, "which are generally 
thought to be Chaldaisms" In this case however, the pause- 
accent will be sufficient to account for the anomaly." 

It is difficult, it would seem, to distinguish the Chaldee 
and Hebrew dialects. They are so similar that the Hebrew 
grammar, by the addition of a a few pages, becomes adapted 
to the Chaldee also, and one Dictionary does for both. 
Vitringa passes the same judgment in his Observ. Sac. lib. i, 
cap. 4 : 

" Sane Chaldaeam aut Syriacam linguam etiam nunc experimur omni- 
um minime ab Hebrsea lingua differre, ita ut dialectus potius et varia 
eloquutio, quam lingua ab Hebrsea diversa, habenda sit." 

In truth we even now find that of all languages the Chaldee or Syrian 
differs the least from the Hebrew, so that it is rather to be esteemed 
a dialect or varied pronunciation than a different language. 



294 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [cHAP. 

This will also account for the remarkable fact that the 
language in which the Old Testament is written, and which 
we term Hebrew, is actually termed Chaldee by Philo 
Judaeus, lib. II, de vita Mosis, vol. ii, pag. 138 edit. Lond. 
1742. 

To iraXaLOV i<ypd<fyr)(rav ol vofioi yKcoorarj Xa\Bal/<fj, ical fJ^eypt 
ttoWov Bd/xeivav iv d/ioia), ttjv ScaXe/crov ov jj,€Ta/3dXkovTe$, eW 
fiTjirco to fcdWos eh rovs a\\ov$ dv6 panrovs dve^yrjvav avrcov. 

The Laws were written formerly in the Chaldee tongue, and remain- 
ed for a long time in the same state, not changing the dialect, so long as 
they did not reveal their beauty to other nations. 

The inference which I would draw from these observa- 
tions is this — that the common Hebrew is the language 
spoken by the Israelites between the Captivity and the 
Christian era — that we know nothing of the earlier dialect, 
because no writings, in which it occurs, have come down 
to us in their original state — that the Chaldee dialect, 
as it is called, is no more than a modified form of the 
Hebrew, existing, first, concurrently with it, and after- 
words, when the Jewish state was broken up by the 
Romans, superseding altogether the more pure Hebrew 
and like all other human dialects, perishing in due course 
of time, like the Hebrew which it had superseded. 



31.] ALPHABET OF CADMUS. 295 



. CHAPTER. 31. 

Alphabet of Cadmus — Phoenician oejgin oe letters — 
Conclusion. 

If it should then appear certain that the Egyptians did 
not possess an alphabetic mode of writing when the 
Israelites escaped from captivity, it is an obvious inference 
that the fugitives, who had all been born and bred in 
Egypt, could not convey with them into the desert the 
knowledge of an art, which was still, for many centuries, 
unknown in the country where they had so long sojourned. 
The only writing with which even Moses himself was at 
this time acquainted, was the hieroglyphical, such as 
prevailed in Egypt. But between the hieroglophical style 
of writing and the Hebrew mode, found in the books 
ascribed to Moses and other authors of the Old Testament, 
there is a wide interval, which hardly could have been 
passed, by either a nation or an individual, during the life- 
time of one man. There is in fact, as we have seen in 
chapter 29, an intermediate stage — the symbolic mode, as 
still practised in China — between the Egyptian hierogly- 
phics and the Hebrew consonants. Here then is the 
most important question connected with our subjects 
Where and by what means did the Hebrews acquire the 
art of writing, as exemplified by the particular letters or 
characters in which the books of Moses and their other 
Scriptures are composed ? To answer this question we 
must institude an analysis into the Hebrew alphabet, and 
compare it with other ancient alphabets, and especially 
the Greeian, to which it bears a remarkable likeness : we 
must also examine the Grecian writers, through whom 
almost all our knowledge of the ancient world is desired, 
and see if any clue can be obtained from their works to 



296 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [cHAP. 

explain the obscure subject now before us. Either process 
is sufficient to form the subject of a separate work, and 
it is the author's earnest hope that he may have health 
and strength hereafter to pursue minutely the subject 
which he is compelled at present to dismiss with a hasty 
notice. 

The common letters of the alphabet are said to have 
been introduced into Greece by Cadmus, as some say 
about 1300, but according to Sir Isaac Newton and Mr Fynes 
Clinton, not more than 900 years before the Christian era. 

That letters were at that time unknown to every other 
European nation, is a point which has always been con- 
sidered as certain, until the opposite opinion was taken up 
by the Celtic antiquaries, some of whom advanced the 
plausible conjecture that the Phoenicians, with their 
merchandize, may have introduced their letters also into 
Ireland and the other north-western countries of Europe 
to which they traded. Other Celtic scholars have con- 
tended for the antiquity of the northern Runic characters ; 
others again for an early Pelasgic alphabet in Greece ; 
but neither of these systems has yet acquired so much 
stability as to supersede and extinguish the current opinion 
that Greece first, and through her the rest of Europe owe 
letters, as well as civilization generally, to Phoenicia. We 
need not now enquire from what other, more easterly, 
people the Phoenicians themselves acquired their alphabet ; 
for it is sufficient to shew that letters were transmitted by 
them to Greece, 200, if not 500, * years after the time of 
Moses. Pursuing the train of Grecian history downwards 
from the time of Cadmus, we find that even then four 
hundred years passed away before Homer lived and 
composed his poems on the Trojan war. It is also said 
that these poems were preserved by oral tradition alone 

* According as an earlier or later date is assigued to Cadmus, 



31.] HEBREW ALPHABET. 297 

two hundred years longer, until Pisistratus, or as some say- 
Solon, and others Lycurgus, collected them in writing 
and introduced them into Greece. Whatever may be the 
age at which Homer lived, and composed those celebrated 
poems, it is admitted by all that they did not come to the 
knowledge of the Greeks until about the year 600 before 
Christ, and were not, in fact, until that time, reduced into 
the form of separate and perfect poems. 

It is well known that the alphabet of Cadmus consisted 
of sixteen or seventeen letters only : but the Hebrew 
alphabet has two and twenty. This seems to shew that 
the alphabet of Cadmus is the more ancient of the two. 
Languages become more varied, and their alphabets more 
extensive, as time advances. The English language 
contained 24 letters only until a very recent period, when 
I and J, U and V, from having been originally identical, 
have become distinct letters. If Cadmus * migrated from 
Palestine, as is said, so long after the time of Moses, why 
did he take only 16 or 17 letters with him, and not all the 
22 that had been so long used, according to received 
opinions, in the country which he left behind him ? The 
natural inference from this fact is that the 22 Hebrew 



* I am not ignorant that opinions are divided concerning the age of Cadmus : 
some chronologers make him contemporary or almost contemporary with Moses, 
others make him to have lived more than 200 years later. I prefer the latter 
opinion, on the general principle of not taking every thing for truth which is 
told us by historians, for the purpose of exalting the antiquity of their nation. 
No books existed in Greece until many hundred years after the time of Cadmus, 
and I look with extreme suspicion on all narratives, handed down by tradition 
before books were invented. Mr Fynes Clinton, in his Fasti Hellenici, vol. i, 
page 86, observes ; "We cannot assign more than a century to the period which 
elapsed from the coming o r Cadmus to the death of Eteocles ; which will place 
Cadmus at about 130 years before the fall of Troy." But the war of Troy is 
placed by the common chronology in 1180, and by Sir Isaac Newton as late as 
900 before Christ. This calculation makes the age of Cadmus vary from B. C. 
1310 down to B. C. 1030. -—consequently from two to five hundred years after 
the time of Moses. 

38 



298 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP 

letters were not all used in Palestine until after the time 
of Cadmus ; and if the Hebrews copied their letters from 
those of Cadmus, they would at first have taken 16 only, 
and afterwards, as the necessity for more arose, they 
would have increased that number to two and twenty. 
I believe that this process actually took place — that the 
Hebrews learnt their alphabet and most of their civilization 
from the Phoenicians and other inhabitants of Canaan, and 
that in the age of Cadmus they used only 16 or 17 letters, 
because at that time the Canaanites possessed no more. 

There is no reason, says Shuckford,* to think the first and 
most ancient Hebrew alphabet had thus many letters. 
Irenaeus says expressly 

Ipsse antiquse et primse Hebraeorum litterse, et sacerdotales nuncupate, 
decern quidem sunt numero. 

The ancient Hebrew letters denominated Sacerdotal, are ten in 
number. 

It is commonly said that sixteen letters formed the alpha- 
bet of Cadmus : these were a, /9, y, $, e, t, k, \, jjl, v, o, it, p, <t, 
t, v. But it appears from old inscriptions that the letter U 
was not used, its place being supplied by O ; if this be so, 
we must fiU up the number of the sixteen letters by insert- 
ing F the digamma, which certainly occurs on inscriptions, 
and had a power kindred to that of U, V or W. As the 
Hebrew has no U, but a vau ovwaw, sounding something 
like V, W, or F, the likeness between the Greek and Heb- 
rew alphabets is rendered remarkably striking. 

It is said by some ancient writers that the Grecian 
alphabet was increased from its original sixteen letters by 
Palamedes, who added 0, f, <£, %, and by Simonides, who 
added £ rj, yfr, a. But several of these letters occur also in 
the modern Hebrew alphabet ; yet it is almost certain that 
neither Palamedes nor Simonides ever was in Phoenicia or 
the land of Canaan, they therefore did not borrow these 

* Connection Vol.i, p. 255, 3d edit note. 



131.] HEBREW ALPHABET. 299 

letters from the Israelites, as is proved also by the nature 
of these letters, which either are double letters, combined 
of two others, as zeta or zed which is a combination of d 
and s, or bear a certain relation to other letters for prosodial 
purposes, as eta and omega, which are merely long forms 
of epsilon and omicron. 

If then the supplementary letters were invented in 
Greece, they must evidently have been borrowed from the 
Greeks by the Hebrews : nor is this supposition so 
improbable as it may seem ; for in the age of Alexander 
there was a great influx of Greeks into Palestine : Grecian 
arts and Grecian literature were introduced, and in the 
days of the Syrian kings, who bore the name of Antiochus, 
Judaea ran a narrow risk of becoming altogether a Grecian 
dependency. Here then is to be found the channel 
through which the Hebrew alphabet, originally consisting 
of ten, and afterwards of sixteen letters, w r as finally 
increased to the number of two and twenty. At the same 
period also, the limited means which the ancients possessed 
for multiplying books were wonderfully increased by 
Eumenes king of Pergamus, who, in imitation of the 
Egyptian papyrus, and in rivalry of Ptolemy's famous 
Alexandrian library, caused the material called Pergament 
or parchment, to be fabricated from the skins of goats, and 
on this new substance all the most famous Grecian writings 
were copied out to enrich the newly formed library of 
Pergamus. 

These facts seem to show that books were first brought 
into use and their use finally extended, between the sixth 
and third centuries before the Christian era. The same 
inference, too, seems to follow from the general prevalent 
use of inscriptions anterior to that date. Herodotus 
relates that he saw an ancient hexameter verse — the most 
ancient then known — sculptured in Cadmean letters by 
Amphitryon on a tripod at Delphi. It appears, indeed, 



300 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

that before the date, so often already mentioned, books, as 
we now have them, were absolutely unknown : every 
thing was carved in stone ; laws were promulgated and 
proclamations issued by means of inscriptions. The two 
tables of stone given by God through Moses, have nothing 
to distinguish them from other similar tablets, which 
have been used by all nations for the same purpose. The 
Decemviri, at Rome, followed the same mode, which 
continued to be practised in Athens, and over all Greece, 
for many hundred years. These facts lead to the belief 
that it was not different with the Israelites, a nation, 
chosen indeed by the Almighty to play a signal part in the 
history of the world, but endowed with no peculiar 
development of intellectual genius, that might enable them 
to outstrip the rest of the world, in arts, letters or general 
civilization. 



31.] HEBREW ALPHABET. 297 

two hundred years longer, until Pisistratus, or as some say- 
Solon, and others Lycurgus, collected them in writing 
and introduced them into Greece. Whatever may be the 
age at which Homer lived, and composed those celebrated 
poems, it is admitted by all that they did not come to the 
knowledge of the Greeks until about the year 600 before 
Christ, and were not, in fact, until that time, reduced into 
the form of separate and perfect poems. 

It is well known that the alphabet of Cadmus consisted 
of sixteen or seventeen letters only : but the Hebrew 
alphabet has two and twenty. This seems to shew that 
the alphabet of Cadmus is the more ancient of the two. 
Languages become more varied, and their alphabets more 
extensive, as time advances. The English language 
contained 24 letters only until a very recent period, when 
I and J, U and V, from having been originally identical, 
have become distinct letters. If Cadmus * migrated from 
Palestine, as is said, so long after the time of Moses, why 
did he take only 16 or 17 letters with him, and not all the 
22 that had been so long used, according to received 
opinions, in the country which he left behind him ? The 
natural inference from this fact is that the 22 Hebrew 



* I am not ignorant that opinions are divided concerning the age of Cadmus : 
some chronologers make him contemporary or almost contemporary with Moses, 
others make him to have lived more than 200 years later. I prefer the latter 
opinion, on the general principle of not taking every thing for truth which is 
told us by historians, for the pm-pose of exalting the antiquity of their nation. 
No books existed in Greece until many hundred years after the time of Cadmus, 
and I look with extreme suspicion on all narratives, handed down by tradition 
before books were invented. Mr Fynes Clinton, in his Fasti Hellenici, vol. i, 
page 86, observes ; "We cannot assign more than a century to the period which 
elapsed from the coming of Cadmus to the death of Eteocles ; which will place 
Cadmus at about 130 years before the fall of Troy." But the war of Troy is 
placed by the common chronology in 1180, and by Sir Isaac Newton as late as 
900 before Christ. This calculation makes the age of Cadmus vary from B. C. 
1310 down to B. C. 1030. — consequently from two to five hundred years after 
the time of Moses. 

33 



298 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

letters were not all used in Palestine until after the time 
of Cadmus ; and if the Hebrews copied their letters from 
those of Cadmus, they would at first have taken 16 only, 
and afterwards, as the necessity for more arose, they 
would have increased that number to two and twenty. 
I believe that this process actually took place — that the 
Hebrews learnt their alphabet and most of their civilization 
from the Phoenicians and other inhabitants of Canaan, and 
that in the age of Cadmus they used only 16 or 17 letters, 
because at that time the Canaanites possessed no more. 

There is no reason, says Shuckford,* to think the first and 
most ancient Hebrew alphabet had thus many letters. 
Irenseus says expressly 

IpsEe antique et priinse Hebrseorum lit terse, et sacerdotales nuncupate, 
decern quidern sunt numero. 

The ancient Hebrew letters denominated Sacerdotal, are ten in 
number. " 

It is commonly said that sixteen letters formed the alpha- 
bet of Cadmus : these were a , ft 7, 8, e, 1, tc, X, ^ v, o, it, p, a, 
t, v. But it appears from old inscriptions that the letter, U 
was not used, its place being supplied by O ; if this be so, 
we must fill up the number of the sixteen letters by insert- 
ing F the digamma, which certainly occurs on inscriptions, 
and had a power kindred to that of U, V or W. As the 
Hebrew has no U, but a vau or warn, sounding something 
like V, W, or F, the likeness between the Greek and Heb- 
rew alphabets is rendered remarkably striking. 

It is said by some ancient writers that the Grecian 
alphabet was increased from its original sixteen letters by 
Palamedes, who added 0, £ $, x> and by Simonides, who 
added £ rj, ^, &>. But several of these letters occur also in 
the modern Hebrew alphabet ; yet it is almost certain that 
neither Palamedes nor Simonides ever was in Phoenicia or 
the land of Canaan, they therefore did not borrow these 

* Connection Vol.i, p. 255, 3d edit note. 



131.] HEBREW ALPHABET. 299 

letters from the Israelites, as is proved also by the nature 
of these letters, which either are double letters, combined 
of two others, as zeta or zed which is a combination of d 
and s, or bear a certain relation to other letters for prosodial 
purposes, as eta and omega, which are merely long forms 
of epsilon and omicron. 

If then the supplementary letters were invented in 
Greece, they must evidently have been borrowed from the 
Greeks by the Hebrews : nor is this supposition so 
improbable as it may seem ; for in the age of Alexander 
there was a great influx of Greeks into Palestine : Grecian 
arts and Grecian literature were introduced, and in the 
days of the Syrian kings, who bore the name of Antiochus, 
Judaea ran a narrow risk of becoming altogether a Grecian 
dependency. Here then is to be found the channel 
through which the Hebrew alphabet, originally consisting 
of ten, and afterwards of sixteen letters, was finally 
increased to the number of two and twenty. At the same 
period also, the limited means which the ancients possessed 
for multiplying books were wonderfully increased by 
Eumenes king of Pergamus, who, in imitation of the 
Egyptian papyrus, and in rivalry of Ptolemy's famous 
Alexandrian library, caused the material called Pergament 
or parchment, to be fabricated from the skins of goats, and 
on this new substance all the most famous Grecian writings 
were copied out to enrich the newly formed library of 
Pergamus. 

These facts seem to show that books were first brought 
into use and their use finally extended, between the sixth 
and third centuries before the Christian era. The same 
inference, too, seems to follow from the general prevalent 
use of inscriptions anterior to that date. Herodotus 
relates that he saw an ancient hexameter verse — the most 
ancient then known — sculptured in Cadmean letters by 
Amphitryon on a tripod at Delphi. It appears, indeed, 



300 HEBREW SCRIPTURES. [CHAP. 

that before the date, so often already mentioned, books, as 
we now have them, were absolutely unknown : every 
thing was carved in stone ; laws were promulgated and 
proclamations issued by means of inscriptions. The two 
tables of stone given by God through Moses, have nothing 
to distinguish them from other similar tablets, which 
have been used by all nations for the same purpose. The 
Decemviri, at Rome, followed the same mode, which 
continued to be practised in Athens, and over all Greece, 
for many hundred years. These facts lead to the belief 
that it was not different with the Israelites, a nation, 
chosen indeed by the Almighty to play a signal part in the 
history of the world, but endowed with no peculiar 
development of intellectual genius, that might enable them 
to outstrip the rest of the world, in arts, letters or general 
civilization. 



APPENDIX. 

1. The Samaritan Pentateuch. 

From Bean Trideaux's Connection of Sacred and Profane History t 

Vol. Lp. 416, sixth edit, 1719. 

The Samaritans % receive none other scriptures, than the five books of 
Moses, rejecting all the other books, which are in the Jewish canon. 
And these five books they still have among them written in the old 
Hebrew or Phoenician character, which was in use among them before 
the Babylonish Captivity, and in which both these, and all other scrip- 
tures were written, till Ezra transcribed them into that of the Chaldeans. 
And this hath led many learned men into a mistake, as if the Samaritan 
copy, because written in the old character, were the true authentic 
copy, and that Ezra's was only a transcript; whereas in truth the 
Samaritan Pentateuch is no more than a transcript, copied in another 
character from that of Ezra, with some variations, additions, and trans- 
positions made therein. That it was copied from that of Ezra, is mani- 
fest from two reasons. Eor first, it hath all the interpolations that 
Ezra's copy hath ; and that he was the author of those interpolations 
is generally acknowledged; and therefore had it been ancienter than 
Ezra's copy, it must have been without them. 2dlv, There are 
a great many variations in the Samaritan copy, which are manifestly caus- 
ed by the mistake of the similar letters in the Hebrew alphabet; which 
letters having no similitude in the Samaritan character, this evidently 
proves those variations were made in transcribing the Samaritan from 
the Hebrew, and not in transcribing the Hebrew from the Samaritan. 
It seems from hence to be beyond all doubt that Manasseh, when he 
fled to the Samaritans, first brought the Law of Moses among them. 
Esarhaddon indeed * sent to his new colony, which he had planted in 
Samaria, an Israelitish prist to teach them the way of worshipping God 
according to the manner of the former inhabitants, but it appears not that 
he did this by bringing the law of Moses among them, or that they 
were any other wise instructed in it, than by tradition, till Manasseh 
came among them. Eor had they received the law of Moses from the 



If Hieronymus in Dialogo adversus Luciferianos. Epiphanius, Haeres. 9. Ben- 
jaminis Itinerarium, p. 38. Eutychius, &c. * II Kings, xvii, 28. 



ii Appendix. 

first, and made that the rule of worship, which they paid the God of 
Israel, from the time of the coming of that priest among them, how 
could they have continued in that gross idolatry of worshipping other 
gods in conjunction with him, which that Law doth so often and so 
strictly forbid ? And yet, in this idolatry, it is agreed on all hands, 
they continued until the building of the temple on mount Gerizim ; 
and therefore it seems clear, that till then they had not a copy of this 
law, but that when Manasseh, and so many apostate Jews with him, 
came over to them, and settled in Samaria, they first brought it among 
them : and because the old Phoenician character was that only which 
the Samaritans were accustomed to, they caused this law, for their 
sakes, to be written out in that character, and in this they have retained 
it ever since. This Samaritan Pentateuch was well known to many of 
the Fathers, and ancient Christian writers. Por it is quoted by Ori- 
gen, Africanus, Eusebius, Jerom, Diodor of Tarsus, Cyril of Alexan- 
dria, Procopius Gazseus, and others. That which made it so familiar 
to them,was a Greek translation of it then extant, which now is lost. 
Por as there was a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures made 
for the Hellenistic Jews, which we call the Septuagint, so also was 
there a like Greek translation of the Samaritan scriptures (that is the 
Pentateuch, which they only allowed for such (made for the use of the 
Hellenistical Samaritans, especially for those of Alexandria,* where the 
Samaritans dwelt in great numbers, as well as the Jews. Origen, in- 
deed, and Jerom, understood the Hebrew language, and might have 
consulted the Samaritan text, that being none other than Hebrew in 
another character. But the rest of those mentioned, understanding 
nothing of it, could no otherwise have any knowledge of this Sama- 
ritan Pentateuch, but from the translation of it. And there is also an 
old scholiast upon the Septuagint, that makes frequent mention of it. 
But this, as well as the other ancient books, in which any mention 
of the Samaritan Pentateuch is to be found, were all written before 
the end of the sixth century. Prom that time for above a thousand 
years after, it hath lain wholly in the dark, and in an absolute state 
of oblivion among all Christians both of the west and east, and hath 
been no more spoken of after that time by any of their writers, till 
about the beginning of the last Century, when Scaliger having 
gotten notice, that there was such a Samaritan Pentateuch among 
those of that sect in the east, J made heavy complaints, that no 
one would take care to get a copy of it from thence, and bring it 
among us into these parts. A little after this % Arch-Bishop Usher 
procured several copies of it out of the east, and not long after 
Sancius Harley, a priest of the Oratory at Paris, and afterwards bishop 
of St Malo's in Britanny, t brought another copy into Europe, and 
reposited it in the library belonging to that order in Paris. Prom 

* Josephus Antip. lib. 12. c. 1 & lib. 13. c. 

X De Emendatione Temporum lib. 7. p. 669. 

1 Waltoni Prolegom. xi. ad Biblia Polyglotta Lond. §.10. 

X Morini Exercitatio prima in Pentajeuchum Samaritanum, cap. 1. 



1. SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH, iii 

which copy Morinus, another priest of the same order, published it 
in the Paris Polyglot. This Sancius Harley had been ambassador 
from the Trench king, at Constantinople, where having resided in that 
quality ten years, he made use of the opportunity which he had there, 
of making a good collection of Oriental books, which he brought home 
with him on his return, and having a while after entered himself among 
the Oratorians at Paris, he did put all these books into their Library, 
and among them was this copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which 
Moriuus published. 

The Samaritans, besides the Pentateuch in the original Hebrew Lan- 
guage, have also t another in the Language that was vulgarly spoken 
among them. For as the Jews after the Babylonish Captivity degenera- 
ted in their language from the Hebrew to the Babylouish dialect, so 
the Samaritans did the same ; whether this happened by their bringing 
this dialect out of Assyria with them, when they first came to plant in 
Samaria, or that they first fell into it, by conforming themselves to the 
speech of those Phoenician and Syrian nations, who lived next them, 
and with whem they mostly conversed, or else had it from the mixture 
of those Jews, who revolted to them with Manasseh, we have not light 
enough to determine. But however it came to pass after it so hap- 
pened, the vulgar no longer understood what was written in the Hebrew 
language. And therefore as the Jews for the sake of the vulgar among 
them, who understood nothing but the vulgar language, were forced to 
make Chaldee versions of the Scriptures, which they call the Targums 
or Chaldee paraphrases ; so the Samaritans were forced for the same 
reason to do the same thing, and to make a vesion of their Pentateuch 
into the vulgar Samaritan, which is called the Samaritan version. And 
this Samaritan version, as well as the original Sam. text Morinus publish- 
ed together in the Polyglot above-mentioned. The Samaritan text he 
printed from Sancius Harley's copy, but the Samaritan version he hadfrom 
Peter a Vaile, gentleman of Rome, who having many years travelled over 
the east, brought it thence with him, and communicated it to Morinus. 
But that work being precipitated with too much haste, it had passed the 
press before such other helps came to him from Periscius, Dr Comber, 
Dean of Carlile, and others, as would have enabled him to have made it 
much more perfect ; but what was wanting therein, was afterwards re- 
tified in the London Polyglot, in which the Samaritan text, and the 
Samaritan version, and the Latin translation of both, are published all 
together much more complete and correct than they were before. This 
Samaritan version is not made, like the Chaldee among the Jews, by 
way of paraphrase, but by an exact rendering of the text word for word 
for the most part without any variation. So that Morinus thought one 
Latin Translation might serve for both, and the London Polyglot hath 
followed the same method ; only where there are any variations, they 
are marked at the bottom of the page. 

t Vide Waltonem et Morinuin, ibid. 



iv Appendix, 

As to the variations, additions, and transpositions, whereby the Sama- 
ritan copy differs from the Hebrew, they are all enumerated in Hettin- 
ger's Book against Morinus, and in the collation made of both texts in 
the last volume of the London Polyglot. It is not to be so much won- 
dered at, that there are these differences between those two copies, as that 
there should not have been many more after those who had adhered to 
the one, and those who had adhered to the other, had not only broken 
off all manner of communication, but had constantly been in the bitter- 
est variance possible with each other for above two thousand years. 
Tor so long had passed from the apostacy of Manasseh to the time when 
these copies were first brought into Europe. After the series of so many 
ages past, many differences might have happened by the errors of the 
transcribers, and the most that are between these two copies are of 
this sort. As to the rest, some are changes designedly made by the 
Samaritans, for the better support of their cause against the Jews, of 
which sort one that is notoriously such, will be taken noticed of by and 
by in its proper place. Others are interpolations for the better expli- 
cation of the text, added either from other parts of Scripture, or else by 
way of paraphrase upon it, to express explicitly, what was thought to be 
implicitly contained therein. Of the first sort are, 1st, The addition 
which we find in the 18th chapter of Exodus, where between the 25th 
and the 26th verses is inserted, what we have from the ninth to the 
fourteenth verse of the first of Deuteronomy inclusively ; and 2dly, 
That which we find in the tenth of Numbers, where between the tenth 
and the eleventh verses is inserted, all that which we read in the sixth, 
seventh, and eigthth verses of the first of Deuteronomy ; both which 
insertions are wanting in the Hebrew. And of the other sort are what 
we find in the fourth chapter of Genesis, ver. 8, and in the twelfth 
chapter of Exodus, verse the 40th. In the first of these, after what is 
said in the Hebrew Text, And Cain spake (or said) to Abel his Brother, 
the Samaritan Text adds, Let us go into the field. And in the latter, 
instead of these words in the Hebrew text ; Now the inhabiting of the 
Children of Israel whereby they inhabited in Egypt, was 430 years : 
The Samaritan text hath it, Now the inhabiting of the Children of 
Israel, and their Fathers, whereby they inhabited in the Land of Canaan, 
and in the Land of Egypt, were 430 years. Both these additions, it is 
manifest, mend the Text, and make it more clear, and intelligible, and 
seem to add nothing to the Hebrew copy, but what must be understood 
by the Eeader, to make out the sense thereof. As to the other variations, 
the most considerable of them are those, which we find in the ages of the 
Patriarch before Abraham, in which the Samaritan computation comes 
nearer to the Septuagint, than to the Hebrew, though it differs from 
both. How these, or the transpositions of verses or the other alterations 
and additions, which are found in the Samaritan copy, and the differen- 
ces which from thence arise between the Hebrew and Samaritan Penta- 
teuch, came about, many conjectures have been offered ; but no certain 
Judgment being to be made about them, without a better light to direct 
us herein, than we can now have, I will trouble the reader with none 



1. SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. V 

of tlicm ; but shall' add only this farther upon this head, that none of 
these differences can infer, that the Samaritan copy, which we now 
have, is not truly that which was anciently iu use among them. For 
most, if not all of those passages, which were quoted out of it above 
eleven hundred years since, by those writers 1 have mentioned, as 
differing from, or agreeing with the Hebrew text, and by some of them 
much earlier, are now to be found in the present Samaritan copies in 
the same w T ords, as quoted by them, and in the same manner differing 
from, or agreeing with that text. There is an old copy of the Samaritan 
Pentateuch now shewn at Shechem, (or Naplous as they now call it) the 
head seat of that sect, which would put this matter beyond all dispute, 
were that true which is said of it. For || they tell us, that therein are 
written these words : I Abishua the son of Phineas the son of Eleazar 
the son of Aaron the high-priest, have transcribed this copy at the door 
of the tabernacle of the Congregation, in the thirteenth year of the 
children of Israel's entrance into the holy land. But Dr Huntington, 
late bishop of Eapho in Ireland, having, while chaplain to the Turkey 
company at Aleppo, been at Shechem, and there examined this copy 
upon the spot, found no sach words on the Manuscript, nor thought the 
copy ancient. Whether the Samaritans did in ancient times absolutely 
reject all the other scriptures besides the Pentateuch, some do doubt, 
because it is certain § from the discourse of the woman of Samaria with 
our Saviour, that they had the same expectations of a Messiah, that the 
Jews had, and this they say, they could no where clearly have, but 
from the Prophets. And it cannot be denied, but there is some force 
in this argument. Perchance although they did read the Pentateuch only 
in their synagogues, yet anciently they might not have been without a 
due regard to the other sacred writings, whatsoever their sentiments 
may be of them at present. 



|| Waltoni Prolegom. xl. ad Biblia Polyglotta Lond. §. 17. Hottingeri 
Exercitationes Anti-Morinianse. Sect. 37. Basnage's History of the Jews, 
book 2, chap. 2, p. 81. § John i\\ 25. 



vi Appendix. 



2. Mutability op language. 

From Br Shuchford 's Connection of Sacred and Profane History, 

Vol. I, p. 124 , third edit, 1743. 

The general causes *of the mutability of language, are commonly 
reduced to these three, 1. The difference of climates. 2. An intercourse 
of commerce with different nations ; or, 3. The unsettled temper and 
disposition of mankind. 

1. The difference of climates will insensibly cause a variation of 
language, because it will occasion a difference of pronunciation. It is 
easy to be observed, that there is a pronunciation peculiar to almost 
every country in the world, and according to the climate, the language 
will abound in Aspirates or Lenes, guttural sounds or pectorals, labials 
or dentals ; a circumstance which would make the very same language 
sound very different from its self, by a different expression or pronunci- 
ation of it. The f Ephraimites, we find, could not pronounce the letter 
schin as their neighbours did. There is a pronunciation peculiar to al- 
most every province, so that if we were to suppose a number of men of 
the same nation and language dispersed into different parts of the world, 
the several climates which their clildren would be born in, would so 
affect their pronunciation, as in a few ages to make their language very 
different from one another. 

2. A commerce or intercourse with foreign nations does often cause 
an alteration of language. Two nations, by trading with one another, 
shall insensibly borrow words from each other's language, and intermix 
them in their own ; and it is possible, if the trade be of large extent, 
and continued for a long time, the number of words so borrowed shall 
increase and spread far into each country, and both languages in an age 
or two be pretty much altered by the mixture of them. In like manner, 
a plantation of foreigners may by degrees communicate words to the 
nation they come to live in. A nation's being conquered, and in some 
parts peopled by colonies of the conquerors, may be of the same conse- 
quence : as may also the receiving the religion of another people, in 
all these cases, many words of the sojourners, or conquerors, or instruc- 
tors, will insensibly be introduced, and the language of the conutry that 
received them, by degrees altered and corrupted by them. 

3. The third and last cause of the mutability of language, is the 
unsettled temper and disposition of mankind. The very minds and 
maimers of meu are continually changing ; and since thev are so, it is 
not likely that their idioms and words should be fixed and stable. An 

* Bodinus in Method. Hist. c. 9. f Judges xii. 0. 



2. MUTABILITY OF EANGUAGE. Vll 

uniformity of speech depends upon an entire consent of a number of 
people in their manner of expression ; but a lasting consent of a large 
number of people, is hardly ever to be obtained, or long to be kept up 
in any one thing ; and unless we could by law prescribe words to the 
multitude, we shall never find it in diction and expression. Ateius 
Capito would have flattered Caesar into a belief, that he could make the 
Roman language what he pleas'd; but Pomponius very honestly assured 
him he had no such power. J Men of learning and observation may 
think and speak accurately, and may lay down rules for the direction 
and regulation of other people's language, but the generality of man- 
kind will still express themselves as their fancies lead them ; and the 
expression of the generality, though supported by no rules, will be the 
current language ; and hence it will come to pass, that we shall be 
always so far from fixing any stability of speech, that we shall continually 
find the observation of the poet verified : 

Multa renascentur quae jam cecidere, cadentque 
Quce nunc sunt in honore vocabula, si volet usus, 
Quern penes arbitrium est etjus et norma loquendi. 

Language will be always in a fluctuating condition, subject to a 
variety of new words and new expressions, according as the humour of 
the age and the fancies of men shall happen to introduce them. 

These are the general reasons of the mutability of language; and it is 
apparently true, that some or other of these have, ever since the con- 
fusion of Babel, kept the languages of the world in a continual variation. 
The Jews mixing with the Babylonians, when they were ^ carried into 
captivity, quickly altered and corrupted their language, by introducing 
many Syriacisms and Chaldeisms into it. And afterwards, when they 
became subject to the || Greeks and Romans, their language became 
not only altered, but as it were lost, as any one will allow, that considers 
how vastly the old Hebrew differs from the Rabbinical diction, and the 
language of the Talmuds. The Greek tongue in time suffered the same 
fate, and part of it may be ascribed to the Turks over-running their 
country, and part of it to the translation of the Roman empire to Con- 
stantinople ; but some part of the change came from themselves ; for, 
as Brerewood has observed, they had changed many of their ancient 
words, long before the Turks broke in upon them, of which he gives 
several instances out of the books of Cedrenus, Nicetas, and other 
Greek writers. § 

The numerous changes which the Latin tongue * has undergone, 
may be all accounted for by the same reasons : they had in a series of 
years so diversified their language, that the Salian verses composed by 
Numa, were scarce understood by the priests in Quintilian's time ; and 



X For this reason the great orator observes, Usum loquendi populo concessi, 
scientiam mihi reservavi. Cic. de Oratore. 

U Walton. Prolegom. || Id Ibid. 

§ Walton in Prolegom. de Linguarum Natura, &c. 
* Id. Ibid. 



viii Appendix. 

there were but few antiquaries within about three hand red and fifty 
years, that could read and give the sense of the articles of treaty 
between Rome and Carthage, made a little after the expulsion of the 
kings. The laws of the twelve tables, collected by Fulvius Ursinus, 
and published in the words of the kings and Decemviri that made them, 
are a specimen of the very great alteration that time introduced into the 
Latin tongue : nay, the pillar in the capitol, erected in honour of 
Drusillns about one hundred and fifty years before Cicero, shews, that 
even so small a tract of time as a century and half, caused great 
variations. After the Roman tongue attained the height of its purity, 
it quickly declined again and became corrupted, partly from the number 
of servants kept at Rome, who could not be supposed to speak accurately, 
and with judgement; and partly from the great concourse of strangers, 
who came from the remote provinces, so that the purity of it was to a 
great degree worn off and gone, before the barbarisms of the Goths 
quite extinguished it. 

And what has thus happened in the learned languages, is as observ- 
able in all the other languages of the world ; time and age varies every 
tongue on earth. Our English, the German, French, or any other, 
differs so much in three or four hundred years that we find it difficult 
to understand the language of our forefathers ; and our posterity will 
think ours as obsolete, as we do the speech of those that lived ages ago : 
and all these alterations of the tongues may, I think, be sufficiently 
accounted for by some or other of the causes before assigned. 



On Alphabetic Writing. ix 

3. On Alphabetic Writing. 
From the same work, volume \, page £2£. 

The Latins and Greeks were certainly the only people of Europe that 
had the use of letters very early ; let us now see how they came by 
their knowledge of them- 

And as to the Latins, all writers agree, that they received their letters 
from the Greeks, being first taught the use of them by some of the 
followers of Pelasgus, who came into Italy about 150 years after Cad- 
mus came into Greece, or by the Arcadians, whom Evander led into 
these parts about 60 years after Pelasgus. Pliny and Solinus imagined 
the Pelasgi * to have been the first authors of the Latin letters ; but 
Tacitus was of opinion that the first Italians f were taught letters by 
the Arcadians ; and Dionysius J Halicarnasseus expressly affirms the 
same thing ; so that in this point indeed there is a difference amongst 
writers : but still the Pelasgi and Arcadians being both of them Grecian 
colonies that removed to seek new habitations, it remains uncontrover- 
tsd, that the Latins received their letters from the Greeks, whichsoever 
of these were the authors of them. It is very probable the Pelasgi might 
first introduce the use of them, and the Arcadians, who came so soon 
after them, might bring along with them the same arts as the Pelasgi 
had before taught, and letters in particular ; and some parts of Italy 
might be instructed by one, and some by the other ; and this is exactly 
agreeable to Pliny. If That the Latin letters were derived from the 
Greek seems very probable from the similitude the ancient letters of 
each nation bear to one another. Tacitus || observes, that the shape 
of the Latin letters was like that of the most ancient Greek ones ; and 
the same observation was made by § Pliny, and confirmed from an 
ancient table of brass inscribed to Minerva. Scaliger * has endeavoured 
to prove the same point, from an inscription on a pillar which stood for- 
merly in the Via Appia to old Home, and was afterwards removed into 
the gardens of Farnese. Vossius is of the same opinion, and has shewn 
at large f how the old Latin letters were formed from the ancient Greek, 
with a very small variation. 

Let us now come to the Greeks ; and they confess that they were 
taught their letters. The J Ionians were the first that had knowledge 
of them, and they learned them from the Phoenicians. The Ionians did 
not form their letters exactly according to the Phoenician alphabet, but 



♦ Plin. I. 7. c. 56. f L. 11. p. 131. I Dion. Halicar. 1. 2. 

1 Lib. 7. c. 56. || Tacit. Annal. 1. 11. § L. 7. c. 5S. 

* Digress, ad Annum Euseb. 1617. f Voss. 1. 1, c. 24, 25. 
X Herod, in Terpsichor. 

c 



x Appendix. 

they varied them but little, and were so just as to acknowledge whence 
they received them, by always calling their letters Phoenician. And 
the followers of Cadmus are % supposed to be the persons who taught 
the Tonians the first use of their letters. This is the substance of what 
is most probable about the origin of the Greek letters. There are in- 
deed other opinions of some writers to be met with; for some have 
imagined that Palamedes was the author of the Greek letters, others 
that Linus, and others that Simonides ; but these persons were not 
the first authors, but only the improvers of the Greek alphabet. 
The long vowels t] and co were the invention of Simonides : for at first 
e and o were used promiscuously, as long or short vowels : <f>, %, and 
6, were letters added to the alphabet by Palamedes ; and f and y\r, tho' 
we are not certain who was the author of them, did not belong to the 
original alphabet ; but still, tho' these letters were the inventions of 
Palamedes, Linus, or Simonides, yet they cannot be said to be the 
authors of the Greek letters in general, because the Greeks had an alpha- 
bet of letters before these particular ones came into use; as might be 
shewn from several testimonies of ancient writers, and some specimens 
of ancient inscriptions, several copies of which have been taken by the 
curious. 

Yossius * was of opinion that Cecrops was the first author of the 
Greek letters ; and it must be confessed that he has given some, not 
improbable, reasons for his conjecture ; and Cecrops was an Egyptian, 
much older than Cadmus, and was remarkable for understanding both 
the Egyptian and Greek tongues ; but the arguments for Cadmus are 
more in number, and more conclusive than for Cecrops. If Cecrops did 
teach the Greeks any letters, the characters he taught are entirely lost ; 
for the most, ancient Greek letters, which we have any specimen of, were 
brought into Greece by Cadmus, or his followers. Herodotus t expressly 
affirms himself to have seen the very oldest inscriptions in Greece, and 
that they were wrote in the letters which the Ionians first used, and 
learned from Cadmus, or the Phoenicians. The inscriptions he speaks 
of were upon the tripods at Thebes in Boeotia, in the Temple of Apollo. 
There were three of these Tripods : The first of them was given to the 
Temple by Amphitryon, the descendent of Cadmus : the second by Laius 
the son of Hippocoon : the third by Laodamas the son of Eteocles. 
Scaliger has § given -a copy of these inscriptions (as he says) in the old 
Ionian letters, but I doubt he is in this point mistaken, as he is also 
in another piece J of antiquity which he has copied, namely, the inscrip- 
tion on Herod's pillar, which stood formerly in the Via Appia, but was 



f See Plut. Sympos. 1. 9. prob. 2. & 3. Philostrat. 1. 2. de vit. Sophist. 
Critias apud Athenaeum, 1. 1. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 1. Yoss. de arte Gram. 
1. 1. c. 10. Scaliger in Not. ad Euseb. 1617. Grot.inNot.adlib.de veritat. 
Rel. 1. 1, n. 13. Bochart Geog. Sacra. 

* Loc. supr. cit. f Loc. supr. cit. X Digress, ad aim. Euseb. 

1617. f Ad Num. Euseb. 1702. 



Si Alphabetic Writing. xi 

afterwards removed into the gardens of Earnese. The letters on this 
pillar do not seem to be the old Ionian, as may be seen by comparing 
them with ChishulFs Sigean inscription, or with the letters on the 
pedestal of the colossus at Delos, of which Montfancon gives a copy; 
but they are either (as Dr Chishull imagines) such an imitation of the 
Ionian/ as Herod a good Antiquary knew how to make; or they are the 
character which the Ionian letters were in a little time changed to, for 
they do not differ very much from them. But, to return : It is, I say, 
agreed by the best writers, that the Greeks received their letters from 
the Phoenicians, and that the ancient Ionian letters were the first that 
were in use amongst them. And. thus we have traced letters into 
Phoenicia. VTe have now to encpiire whether the Phoenicians were the 
inventors of them, or whether they received them from some other 
nation. 

We must confess that many writers have supposed the Phoenicians 
to be the inventors of letters. Pliny* and Curtinsf both hint this 
opinion ; and agreeable hereto are the words of the Poet 1. 



Phcenices primi, fanxte si credimns, ausi 
Mansuram rudibus vocem signare figuris. 

And Cretias % 

$olvifce$ 8' evpov ypdfifiar d\efji\oya. 

And so Hesychius makes i/c^oLVL^ac and dva^/vcbaai, to act the Phoe- 
nician, and to read, to be synonymous terms. But there are other 
authors, and with better reason, of another opinion. Diodoras || says 
expressly, that the Syrians were the inventors of letters, and that the 
Phoenicians learnt them from them, and afterwards sailed with Cadmus 
into Europe, and taught them to the Greeks. Eusebhis assents to this, 
and thinks § the Syrians that first invented letters, were the Hebrews ; 
tho' this is not certain. It is indeed true * that the ancient Hebrews 
had the same tongue and characters, or letters, with the Canaanites or 
Phoenicians, as might be evidenced from the concurrent testimonies of 
many authors ; nay, all the nations in these parts, Phoenicians, Canaan- 
ites, Samaritans, and probably the Assyrians for some ages, spake and 
wrote alike. 

Athanasins Kircher * imagined that the Phoenicians learnt their 
letters from the Egyptians, and endeavoured to prove that the first 
letters which Cadmus brought into Greece, were Egyptian. He describes 



* Plin. 1. 5. & 1. 7. + L ; b. 4. § 4. J Lucan. Pharsal. 1. 3. 

^1 Apud Athenaeum, 1. i. [| Lib. 5. § Prsep. Evaug. 1. 10. * Lucian. 
Chceril. de Solyrais. Seal, digress, ad Ann. Euseb. 1617. 

f CEdip. .Egypt. Tom. 3. diatr. praelusor. 3. 



xii Appendix, 

the figures of these Cadmean letters, and endeavours to prove, that 
they were the very same that were used at that time in Egypt ; but his 
arguments for this opinion are not conclusive. The letters he produces 
are the present Coptic, as the very names and figures of them shew 
evidently ; not that the Greek letters were derived from them, but rather 
that the Egyptians learned them from the ancient Greeks ; and I believe 
(says Bishop Walton) whoever shall read the Coptic books, will find 
such a mixture of Greek w r ords in them, that he cannot doubt but that 
Ptolemy, after his conquests in Greece, brought their letters, and much of 
their language into Egypt. Kircher endeavours to shew by their form 
and shape, that the Greek letters were formed from the Egyptian descrip- 
tion of their sacred animals, which he thinks were the letters which the 
Egyptians at first used in their common writing, as well as in their 
Hieroglyphical mysteries. These letters, he says, Cadmus communicated 
to the Greeks, with only this difference, that he did not take care to 
keep up to the precise form of them, but made them in a looser manner. 
He pretends to confirm his opinion from Herodotus ; and lastly affirms 
from St Jerom, that Cadmus, and his brother Phoenix, were Egyptians ; 
that Phoenix, in their travels from Egypt, stayed at Phoenicia, which took 
its name from him ; that Cadmus went into Greece, but could not 
possibly teach the Grecians any other letters, than what himself had learnt 
when he lived in Egypt. But to all this there are many objections. 1. 
The Hieroglyphical way of writing was not the most ancient way of 
writing in Egypt, nor that which Cadmus taught the Greeks. 2. Hero- 
dotus, in the passage * cited, does not affirm Cadmus to have brought 
Egyptian letters into Greece, but expressly calls them Phoenician letters ; 
and, as we said before, the Phoenician letters were the same as the 
Hebrew, Canaanitish, or Syrian, as Scaliger, Yossius, and Bochart have 
proved beyond contradiction. 3. St. Jerome does not say whether 
Cadmus' s letters were Phoenician or Egyptian, so that his authority is 
of no service in the point before us ; and as to Cadmus and Phoenix's 
being Egyptians, that is much questioned ; it is more probable they 
were Canaanites, as shall be proved hereafter. 

Many considerable writers have given the Egyptians the credit of 
inventing letters ; and they all agree that Mercury or Thyoth was the 
inventor of them. Pliny f in the very place where he says that some 
ascribed the invention of letters to the Syrians, confesses that others 
thought the Egyptians the inventors of them, and Mercury their first 
author. Diodorus J expressly ascribes the invention of them to the 
same person ; and so does Plutarch % and Cicero. || Tertullian § went 



• In Terpsich. (fyolvifca tov KdSfiov ypdjbL/jLara. 

f Hist. 1. 7. c. 56. X Diodor. 1. 2. % Sympos. 1. 20. c. 3. || Lib. 

de Natura Deorum 3. § Lib. de corona Militis, c. 8. & de Testini. Animse, c. 5. 9. 



3. Alphabetic Writing. xm 

into the same opinion ; and we also find it in Plato. Kircker * describes 
the shape of the very letters which this Thyoth invented. And Philo- 
Biblius, the translator of Sanchouiathon's History, quoted by Eusebius 
and Porphyry, mentions the commentaries of Taautus, or Thyoth, and 
the sacred letters he wrote his books in; and Jainblichus f speaks of 
an incredible number of J books wrote by this Taautus. All Antiquity 
agrees, that the use of letters was very early in Egypt, and that Thyoth 
or Mercury was the first that used them there, and taught others the 
use of them ; but tho' he is by many writers, for this reason, called the 
inventor of letters, yet I cannot think that he really was so ; considering 
that mankind was not planted first in Egypt after the flood, but travel- 
led thither from other countries. We have already shewn that the use 
of letters was in Greece first, then in Italy, and afterwards spread into 
the other parts of Europe. We have also considered how they came 
into Greece, namely from Phoenicia; and they were most probably 
introduced into Phoenicia from Syria, and the Syrians, Canaanites, and 
Assyrians, used originally the same letters ; so that in all probability 
they were introduced into all these nations from one to another, and 
were earliest at the place where mankind separated at the confusion of 
tongues; and from this place 'tis also likely they were propagated into 
Egypt, and into all other countries into which any companies dispersed 
from Shinar. I always thought letters to be of an Assyrian original, 
said Pliny % ; and this was his opinion after duly considering what all 
other writers had offered about them. It is highly reasonable to think 
that all arts and sciences flourished here as much earlier, than in other parts, 
as the inhabitants of these parts were settled sooner than those that 
went from them. We have a sufficient account of the first kings, and 
of the ancient history of this part of the world, to induce us to believe 
that they began their annals very early; and we are sure from the 
astronomical observations found at Babylon in the time of Alexander 
the Great, which were before mentioned, that they studied here, and 
recorded such observations as they made, very few years after the dis- 
persion of mankind; a plain indication that they had at this time the 
use of letters; and we have no proofs that the use of them thus early 
in Egypt, or in any other of the nations derived from the dispersion of 
mankind. Taautus is by all writers held to be the first that used letters 
in Egypt, and if we suppose him to have used them before he came to 
be king, when he was Secretary to his father Mizraim, yet still the use 
of them must be later in Egypt than in Assyria, for they were probably 
used in the astronomical records at Babylon, even before Mizraim 
entered Egypt. One thing is here remarkable, namely, that in these 



* (Edip. -Egypt. Tom, 3. diatrib. 2. 
f Lib. de Mysteriis, cap. de Deo atque Diis. J By the books of Taautus, 

I suppose are meant Pillars, or Lumps of Earth with Inscriptions on them, books 
not being invented in these early Ages. % Hist. Nat. lib. 7. c. 56. 

d 



xiv Appendix. 

parts, where -the early use of letters is so capable of being proved, there 
is no mention of any particular person's being the author of them ; for 
the opinion of Suidas, who imagined Abraham to be the author of the 
Assyrian letters, like that of Eupolemus || arid Isidorus,§ who thought 
Moses the inventor of the Hebrew letters, and of the Egyptian, deserve 
no confutation. Letters were used in Assyria, long before Abraham 
was born, and in Egypt, much longer before Moses j and the ancient 
Hebrew and Assyrian letters were the same. The true reason why we 
meet with no supposed author of the Assyrian letters, is, I believe, this; 
antiquity agreed that letters were not invented in Assyria. Mankind 
had lived above 1600 years before the flood, and 'tis not probable they 
lived without the use of letters, for if they had, how should we have had 
the short annals which we have of the first world? Tf they had letters, 
it is likely that Noah was skilled in them, and taught them to his 
children. In the early ages, when mankind were but few, and those 
few employed in all manner of contrivances for life, it could be but here 
and there one that had leisure or perhaps inclination to study letters; 
and yet it is probable that there were too many that understood them 
amongst the people who remained at Shinar, to prevent any rumour of 
a single person's inventing them. The companies that removed from 
Shinar into the other parts of the world, were but rude and uncultivated 
people, who followed some persons of figure and eminence, who had 
gained an ascendant over them, and hence it might come to pass, that 
when they had separated their people from the rest of mankind, and 
came to teach them the arts they were masters of, all they taught them 
passed for inventions of their own, because they knew no other persons 
skilled in them. But at Shinar there were several eminent persons w r ho 
lived subject to Nimrod, and who understood and were masters of the 
several arts and sciences which mankind enjoy' d. together before some 
of the great and leading men made parties for themselves, and separated 
in order to disperse over the world ; and therefore, tho' we here meet 
with a reported author, when any new science was invented, as Belus 
was imagined to be author of their astronomy ; yet in the case of letters, 
in which there was nothing new, nothing but what several amongst 
them, and many that were gone from them were very well skilled in, 
there could arise no account of auy one person amongst them being the 
author or inventor of them. 

There is one consideration more which makes it very probable that 
the use of letters came from Noah, and out of the first world, and that 
is the account which the Chinese give of their letters. They assert their 
first emperor, whom they call Fohi, to be the inventor of them ; before 
Fohi they have no records, and their Fohi and Noah were the same 
person. Noah came out of the ark in these parts of the world, and the 



Euseb. Prsep. Evang. lib. 9. c. 26. § Origines 1. I. c. 3. 



3. Alphabetic Writing. xv 

letters used here were derived from him ; and it happened here, as it 
afterwards did in other parts of the world, Noah being the sole instructor 
of his descendants, what he taught them was by after-ages reported to 
be his own invention, tho' he himself had learned it from those who 
lived before him. Bishop Walton offers arguments to prove the Chinese 
had not the earliest use of letters, but all his arguments arise from a 
supposal that the ark rested in Armenia, and that mankind lived iu 
Assyria soon after the flood, and before they came to China, which I have 
proved not likely to be true. 

We can carry our enquiry into the original of letters no higher. 
Pliny in one place hints them to have been supposed to be eternal ; but 
that opinion must* either be founded upon the erroneous notion of 
the world's being eternal, or can mean no more than that the first men 
invented them. Some of the Rabbins ascribe them to Adam, and some 
to Abel, but they have nothing to offer that is to be depended on. 
Bat surprizingly odd is the whim of some of the Jewish Doctors, who 
affirm ten things to have been created on the evening of the first 
Sabbath, namely, the rain-bow ; the hole of the rock, out of which the 
water flow'd ; the pillar of the cloud and of fire, which afterwards went 
before the Israelites; the two tables on which the law was written; 
Aaron's rod, and letters; but this sort of trash needs no confutation. 

Turpe est difficiles habere nugas, 
Et stultus labor eat ineptiarum. 

If we consider the nature of letters, it cannot but appear something 
strange, that an invention so surprizing as that of writing is, should 
have been found out in ages so near the beginning of the world. 
Nature may easily be suppposed to have prompted men to speak, to try 
to express their minds to one another by sounds and noises; but that 
the wit of man should, amongst its first attempts, find out a way to 
express words in figures, or letters, and to form a method, by which 
they might expose to view all that can be said or thought, aud that 
within the compass of sixteen or twenty, or four aud twenty characters, 
variously placed, so as to form syllables and words ; I say to think that 
any man could immediately and directly fall upon a project of this 
nature, exceeds the highest notion we can have of the capacity we are 
endued with. We have great and extraordinary abilities of mind, and 
we experience that by steps and degrees we can advance our knowledge, 
and make almost all parts and creatures of the world of use and service 
to us ; but still all these things are done by steps and degrees. A first 
attempt has never yet perfected any science or invention whatever. The 
mind of man began to exert itself as soon as ever it was set on thinking ; 



* Pliny hints it only from the supposal of some persons imagined to be very 
ancient having used them. Lib. 7. c. 56. 



xvi Appendix. 

and we find, the first men attempted many of the arts, which after-ages 
carried forwards to perfection; but they only attempted them, and 
attained no further than to leave imperfect essays to those that came 
after. The first men, tho' they had formed a language to be understood 
by, yet certainly never attained to an ele .ancy of speaking. Tubal-Cain 
was the first artificer in brass-works and iron, but without doubt his 
best performances were very ordinary, in comparison of what has been 
done by later artists. The arts of building, painting, carving, and many 
others, were attempted very early ; but the first trials were only attempts ; 
men arrived at perfection by degrees ; time and experience led them on 
from one thing to another, until by having try'd many ways, as their 
different fancies at different times happened to lead them, they 
came to form better methods of executing what they aimed at, than at 
first they thought of. And thus, without doubt, has it happened in the 
affair of letters : men did not at first hit upon a method extremely 
artificial, but began with something easy and plain, simple, and of 
no great contrivance, such as nature might very readily suggest 
to them. 

And, if T may be allowed to make some conjectures upon this subject, 
I should offer, that it is not probable, that the first inventors of letters 
had any alphabet, or set number of letters or any notion of describing 
a word by such letters as should spell, and theieby express the sound 
of it. The first letters were, more likely, strokes, or dashes, by which 
the writers marked down, as their fancies led them, the things they had 
a mind to record ; and one stroke, or dash, without any notion of 
expressing a sound or word by it, was the mark of a whole action, or 
perhaps of a sentence. When the first man began to speak, he had 
only, as T before hinted, to fix to himself, and to teach others to know 
by what particular sounds he had a mind to express the things which 
he had to speak of : in the same manner, whenever mankind formed the 
first thoughts of writing, he that formed them had only to determine, 
by what particular mark he would express the things or actions he had 
a mind to mark clown; and all this he might do, without having any 
notion of expressing a sound, or word, by the characters he made. We 
have amongst us, in frequent use, characters which are as significant as 
letters, and yet have no tendency to express this or that particular 
sound ; for instance, our numeral letters, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, &c. express, as 
clearly as the words themselves could do, the numbers intended by 
them, and they no more spell one, two, three, four, five, than they do 
unum, duo, tria, quatuor; or the Greek words for them, ev, Suo, rpla, 
Tecrcrapa, &c. Our astronomical characters are of the same sort, 

* with many others that might be named, and are at 

sight intelligible to persons of different nations, and who would read 
them into words of different sounds, as each of their languages would 



* Here are omitted the signs of the planets, because my printer had no type to 
represent them : they are, no dcubt, familiar to the reader. 



3. Alphabetic Wetting. xvii 

direct them. Such as these probably were the letters of the first'men ; 
they had no notion of spelling, and expressing the sound of words, but 
made a few marks to be the sign? of the thins? which they had a inind 
to write down, and which might be easily understood by those that made 
them, and by as many others as would take the pain? to learn their 
character. This is what nature would directly lead to, in the first attempts 
of writing. There could be no notion of spelling, nor any thought of 
a set number of letters ; for men. could hardly have a thought of these, 
until language came to be considerably improved ; until they had 
viewed on all sides the nature of their words, and found out how many 
sorts of sounds were required to express them. If we look amongst 
the ignorant persons which are now-a-days in the world, we may see 
enough to shew us, what the first attempts of nature would be, and 
what is owing to improvement. There are many persons in the world, 
who, not having been taught either to write or read, have no notion of 
spelling, and yet can, by their natural parts, form themselves a character, 
and with a piece of chalk record, for their own use, all that they have 
occasion to mark down in their affairs. 1 have been told of a country 
farmer of very considerable dealings who was able to keep no other 
book, and yet carried on a variety of business in buying and selling, 
without disorder or confusion : he chalkM upon the walls of a large 
room set apart for that purpose, what he was obliged to remember of 
his affairs with d : vers persons ■ and if we but suppose, that some of his 
family were instructed in his marks, there is no difficulty in conceiving, 
that he might this way, if he had died, have left a very clear state of his 
concerns to them. Something of this sort is like the first essay of 
nature, and thus, without doubt, wrote the first men. It was time and 
improvement that led them to consider the nature of words, to divide 
them into syllables, and to form a method of spelling them by a set of 
letters. 

If we look amongst the Chinese J we find in fact what I have been 
treating of. They have no notion of alphabetical letters, but make use 
of characters to express their meaning. Their characters are not 
designed to express words, for they are used by several neighbouring 
nations who differ in language; nor are there any set number or collec- 
tion of them, as one would imagine art and contrivance would, at one 
time or another, have reduced them to ; but the Chinese still write in a 
manner as far from art, as one can conceive the first writer to have 
invented. They have a mark for every thing or action they have to 
write of, and not having contrived to use the same mark for the same 
thing, with some common distinctions for the accidental circumstances 
that may belong to it, every little difference of time, manner, place, or 
any other circumstance, causes a new mark, so that tho' their words are 
but few, their letters are innumerable.®! We have in Europe, as I 



Alvar. Seved. Walton. Prolegom. % Their letters are 60, SO, or 120000, 



xv.ii Appendix. 

before hinted, characters to express numbers by, which are not designed 
to stand for any particular sounds, or words ; but then, we have artifi- 
cially reduced them to a small numb it, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, $, and 
the cypher 0, will express all numbers that can possibly be conceived. 
Without doubt the Chinese character might be contracted by a proper 
method, but the writing of this people, as well as their language, has 
had little improvement. When mankind began first to make their 
marks for things, having but few things to mark down, they easily found 
marks enow for them : As they grew further acquainted with the world, 
and wanted more characters, they invented them, and the number increas- 
ing by degrees, it might cause no great trouble to persons who were 
skilled in the received characters, and had only to learn the new ones, as 
they were invented ; but it is strange that a nation shonld go on in 
this method for thousands of years, as the Chinese have really done; 
one would think, that it must easily be foreseen to what a troublesome 
number their letters must in time grow, and that a sense of the common 
convenience should, at one time or other, have put them upon trying 
to reduce them ; but we find in fact they have not done it. The 
Chinese report their letters to have been invented by Eohi, or Noah; 
and in reality both their letters and their language seem so odd, that they 
might well pass for the invention of the early and uncultivated ages of 
mankind. Without doubt the Chinese have added to the number of 
their letters, since the time of their emperor Eohi, and probably altered 
the sound of their old words, and made some new ones ; but they differ 
so remarkably, both in writing and language, from the rest of mankind, 
that I can't but think them the descendents of men that never came to 
Shinar, and who had no concern or communication with those who 
were thence dispersed, by the confusion of Babel, over the face of 
the earth. 

We have no remains, nor so much as any hints in ancient writers, to 
induce us to imagine, that this sort of wriiing was ever used by any of 
the nations that were dispersed from Babel. We read of no letters on 
this side India truly ancient, but what were designed to express the 
words of the people that w r rote them. Laertius || indeed seems to hint 
that the Babylonians had anciently a sacred character, different from 
the letters in common use : and Eusebius § from Philo-Biblius repre- 
sents Sanchoniathon to have searched records wrote in a character of 
this sort. The sacred letters of Egypt are frequently mentioned : 
there were two pillars inscribed in this sort of letters, at the tomb of 
Isis and Osiris ; and 8trabo speaks of a pillar in memory of Sesostris,* 
which had these characters cut upon it; and the remains of Thyoth were 



says Walton ; 54409 say other writers ; and Le Compte says, that he is no learned 
man amongst them that does not understand 15 or 20000 of their letters. 
|| Burnet. Archaeolog. p. 80. § Prsep. Evang. 1. I. c. 9. * Lib. 16. 



3. Alphabetic Writing. xtx 

without doubt written in this character. t It' we consider that Hero- 
dotus and Diodorus mention only two sorts of letters, the sacred and 
common letters ; J and that Clemens Alexaudrinus, and Porphyry, and 
the later writers, who take in the Hieroglyphics, mention ^[ three sorts ; 
it will perhaps induce us to imagine, with Dr Burnet, || that the sacred 
letters of the Egyptians were different from their Hieroglyphics, and 
that the Hieroglyphics were not in use in the first times. It is true, 
Diodorus, § by his description of the sacred letters, makes them to be 
Hieroglyphics; but I imagine that he happened to do so, because 
Hieroglyphics being in use before his time, and the sacred letters, which 
were distinct from them, being then wholly laid aside, he knew of but 
two sorts, the Hieroglyphics and the common letters; and so took the 
sacred letters which he found mentioned by those that wrote before him, 
to be the Hieroglyphics. But Porphyry * very evidently distinguishes 
them one from the other : he calls the sacred letters, * lepoyXvfyuca, 
/cotvoXoyov/jLsva /card fiifirfo'iv and the common Hieroglyphics, Xvfju- 
/3oXlko, aXkriyov^eva /card tivoli Alviypovs. It is indeed something 
difficult to apprehend how letters can be said to imitate the things 
designed by them; however we find this was an ancient notion. Plato 
puts it into the mouth of Socrates. f But tho' for these reasons, I 
imagine that there was an ancient character in Egypt, distinct from both 
the vulgar letters, and common Hieroglyphics ; yet I cannot think, with 
Dr Burnet, that it was like the letters used in China. The Chinese 
letters express no words, or particular sounds whatsoever; but the old 
Egyptian letters did, as appears plainly from the account we have J of 
Agathodaemon's translating them. The remains of Thyoth were inscrip- 
tions on pillars \_arrj\oyv, lepa huaXeKrw koX lepoypacfit/coLS ypdfi/Jbacri, 
Ke^apa/cTrjpia/jLevcov^] Written upon in the sacred language, and 
sacred characters : and Agathodsemon translated them, [etc tt}? Upas 
Btdke/crou e*? rrjv r E\\r)vl8a (fxovrjv ypapbjxacnv 'IepoyXvfafcois •] out 
of the sacred language, into the Greek tongue, in sacred letters, i. e. he 
changed the language, but used the same letters in which Thyoth wrote.^f 
Here therefore we see, that the sacred letters were capable of being used 



f Euseb. in Chron. + Herodotus in Euterpe. Diodorus lib. I. \ Strom. 1.5. 
Porph. de Vita Pythag. p. 185. || Archaeolog. § Lib. 3. 

* In lib. de vit. Pythag. f In Cratylo. 

Tf Bishop Stillingfleet, and several other writers, translate l€poy\v(f)CKOL<; 
ypajJbfJbacnv, Hieroglyphic characters; and the learned bishop remarks upon the 
p issage as follows: it is well still, that this history should be translated into 
Hieroglyphic characters; what kind of translation is that? we had thought 
Hieroglyphics had been representations of things, and not of sounds and letters, 
or words. How could this history at first have been written in any tongue, when 
it was in Hieroglyphics? do Hieroglyphics speak in several languages? and are 
they capable of changing tneir tongues ? the reader will easily observe from this 
remark, that L€poy\vcf)LFCo2? ypd{ip,ct(Tiv, in the passage before us, should be 
translated, not Hieroglyphics, but sacred letters, and then the sense will be 
clear and easy. 



xx Appendix. 

to express the words of different languages, and were therefore not like 
the Chinese, or of the same sort with the first letters of mankind, which 
expressed no words at all. Plato || says, that Thyoth was the first that 
distinguished letters into vowels, and consonants, aud mutes, and liquids, 
and was the author of the art of grammar. I doubt these improvements 
are more modern than the times, of Thyoth; however, Plato's opinion 
in this matter is an evidence that there was no notion in his days of 
Tbyoth's using any other than alphabetical letters. 

The use of alphabetical letters therefore began very early in the 
second world, probably not long after the dispersion of mankind; for 
the records of the Ciialdsean astronomy reach almost up to this time, 
and Thyoth's inscribing pillars was not above two centuries later. 
Alphabetical letters were perhaps invented both in Assyria and in Egypt, 
and to one or other of these two nations all countries are indebted for the 
use of them. We find the great project at Babel, next to building of the 
tower, was the improvement of language ; for this caused the confusion 
which scattered mankind over the face of the earth ; and if the course they 
took in. this affair was such as 1 imagined, namely, an attempt to dissolve 
the monosyllables, of which the first language of mankind consisted, 
into words of various lengths, in order to furnish themselves with new 
sets of names for new things; it may be conceived, that a project of 
this sort might by degrees lead to the invention of alphabetical letters. 
It is not likely that they immediately hit upon an alphabet, but 
they made attempts, and came to it by degrees. 

If we look into the Hebrew tongne, which, before it was improved, 
was perhaps the original language of the world, we shall find that 
its dissyllables are generally two monosyllable words put together : thus 
the word Barah, to Eat, is only Bar, the old word for Beer, to declare; 
and Rah, the old word for Raah, to see ; so the word Kashash, to 
gather is only the word Kash, which signifies Straw, and Sash, to 
rejoice; Ranal, to be moved, is only the old word Ran, which was 
afterwards wrote Eanan, to be evil ; and Nain, which was anciently 
wrote Nan, to direct the eye; Aba,h, to be willing, is made of two 
words, ab, a father, and Bah, the old word for Bohu, for our Lexicons 
derive Bohu from an ancient word Bah, or Bahah. This observation 
may, I believe, be carried thro' the whole language ; there is hardly an 
Hebrew dissyllable, except such only as were anciently pronounced mono- 
syllables, or such as are derived from some theme, aud made up of the 
letters of that theme, with some additional affix, but what are plainly 
and evidently two words (i. e. two significant sounds) join'd together: 
aud I dare say, instances of this kind are not to be found in any of the 
modern languages. This therefore was the method which men took to 
make words of more syllables than one, they joined together their 
monosyllables, and that afforded a new set of words for the enlarging 
their language ; and if this may be allowed me, it will, I think, lead us 

[| In Philebo. p. 371. 



3. Alphabetic Writing. xxi 

to the first tep taken towards altering the first characters of man- 
kind. As they only doubled their sounds,, so they might at first only 
repeat their marks, and the two marks put together, which singly were 
the characters of the single words, were the first way of writing the 
double ones ; and this I think must bring them a very considerable step 
towards the contriving a method of making letters to stand for sounds, 
and not for things. When men spake in monosyllables only, and made 
such marks for the things they spoke of, as the fancy of the first author 
had invented, and custom had made familiar to all that used them, they 
might go on as the Chinese have, and never think of making their 
marks stand for the words they spoke, but rather for the things they 
meant to express by them; but when they once came to think of 
doubling or joining their marks, in a manner that should accord with 
the composition of their words, this would evidently lead them to con- 
sider strictly, that as sounds may be made the means of expressing our 
thoughts, by agreeing to use particular sounds for such thoughts as we 
would express by them ; so also may characters be made the marks of 
particular sounds, by agreeing what character shall be used for one sound 
and what for another. To give an instance from some one of the words 
I have before mentioned : suppose Kashash to be the new invented 
word, designed to signify what we call to gather, and suppose this new 
word to be made by agreeing as I said, to put two known words toge- 
ther, Kash, the word for Straw, and Sash, to rejoice ; and suppose the 
ancient character for Kash was «, and for Sash was , the character then 
for Kashash would be . Here then it would be remarkable, that 
the reader, however he might not observe it, when he met either of 
these characters single, yet he could not but see, when he met them 
together, that each of them stood in the compound word, for a sound, 
and not for a thing ; for the two sounds, one of which each character 
was to express, were, when put together, to signify a very different 
thing from those, which each of them single would have offered. If 
language therefore was altered as I have hinted, which looks very pro- 
bable from considering the nature of the Hebrew dissyllables ; and if 
this alteration of language led to such a duplication of character as I 
have imagined, which is a method very easy and natural for men to fall 
into, we may see that they would be engaged in making characters stand 
for sounds before they were aware of it, and they could hardly do so 
long, before they must consider it, and if they come once to consider it, 
they would go on apace from one thing to another ; they would observe 
how many sounds the words they had in use might be compounded of, 
and be hereby led to make as many characters as they could frame sin- 
gle sounds, into which all others might be resolved, and this would lead 
them directly to an alphabet. 

It is pretty certain, that various nations, from a difference of pronun- 
ciation, or from the different iurn of imagination that is always found in 
different men, would hardly, tho' agreeing in a general scheme for the 
framing their letters, yet happen to frame an alphabet exactly the same, in 



xxu Appendix. 



either shape or number of letters ; and this we find true in fact : the 
Arabian and Persian alphabets have such a similitude, that they were 
probably derived one from the other. And the old Hebrew and Arabian 
(and perhaps the old Egyptian) characters agree in so many respects, as 
to give reason to imagine that they were formed from one common pJan : 
tho' they certainly so differ in. others, that we can't but think that the 
authors of them sat down and formed, tho' upon a common scheme, yet 
in their own way, in the countries which they planted". It is very pro- 
bable, that there may have been in the world several other alphabets 
very different from these. I think I have read of a country in India 
where they use an alphabet of sixty five letters; and Diodorus Siculus* 
informs us, that in the island of Taprobane, which we now call Ceylon, 
they anciently used but seven; but perhaps the reader may be better 
informed in this matter, if he consults some books which Bishop Wal- 
ton % directs to, and which I have not had opportunity of seeing, viz. 
Postellus de 12 Linguis, Duretus de Linguis et characteribus omnium 
Linguarum ; the Alphabetical tables of various characters published at 
Prankfort 1596; and Pa. Bonav. Hepburn's seventy Alphabets, pub- 
lished at Eome 1616. 



4. Otf the Towel Points. 

From Pridecmrfs Connection of the History of the Old and New 
Testament, Sixth edition, Fart I, p. 348. 

Whether Ezra on this review did add the vowel points, which 
are now in the Hebrew Bibles, is an harder question to be decided. It 
went without contradiction in the affirmative, till Elias Levita a German 
Jew wrote against it, about the beginning of the Reformation. But 
Cappellus a Professor of Hebrew in their University at Saumur, hath in 
a very elaborate discourse made a thorough reply to all that can be said 
on this head, and very strenuously asserted the contrary. Buxtorf the 
son in vindication of his father's opinion, hath written an answer to it ; 
but not with that satisfaction to the Learned World, as to hinder the 



Lib. 2, f Prolegora, 



3. Alphabetic Writing. xxiil 

generality of them from goirjg into the other opinion. I shall here 
first state the question, and then enquire on which side of it the truth 
lieth. 

And first, as to the state of the question, it is to be observed, that 
it is upon another foot among us Christians, than it is among the Jews. 
Tor among them it is a principle agreed on of both sides, and which 
Elias Levita conies in unto, as much as any of the rest, that the reading, 
as now fix'd and settled by the vowel points in all the Books of Holy 
Scripture, is the true genuine and authentick reading, as it came from 
the sacred penmen themselves of the said books, and consequently is 
as much of divine authority as the letters, only the latter were written, 
and the other delivered down only by Oral Tradition. The Question 
therefore between them is only about the time, when this reading was 
first marked and expressed in their Bibles by the present vowel points. 
This Elias and his followers say was not done till after the finishin g of 
the Talmud, about five hundred years after Christ ; but thai till then 
the true reading, as to the vowels, was preserved only by Oral Tradition. 
But others of them hold (and this is the prevailing opinion among them) 
that the reading by Oral Tradition w r as only till the time of Ezra, 
and that ever since it hath been written down and expressed by the 
vowel points affixed to the letters in the same manner as w 7 e now 7 have 
them. So that the controversy among them is not about the truth and 
authority of the reading according to the present punctuation (for they 
all hold this to be the very same, which was dictated with the word it- 
self by the Holy Spirit of God from the beginning) but about the anti- 
quity of the figures and points, whereby it is marked and fixed in 
their present Bibles. But among us Christians, who have no regard to 
w r hat the Jews tell us of their Oral Tradition, and their preserving of 
the true reading of the Scriptures by it, the question is about the au- 
thority of the reading itself; that is whether the vowel points w ? ere af- 
fixed by Ezra, and therefore of the same divine authority with the rest 
of the Text, or else invented since by the Jewish criticks called the 
Masorites ; and whether therefore they may not, as being of human au- 
thority only, be altered and changed, where the Analogy of Grammar, 
the style of the Language, or the nature of the context, or any thing else 
shall give reason for a better reading. And this being the state of the 
Question ; as it is now 7 in debate among Christians, that side of it which 
I have here last mentioned is that, which is now generally held for the 
truth, and these following arguments make strongly for it. 

1. The sacred Books made use of among the Jews in their Synago- 
gues * have ever been and still are without the vow 7 el points, which 
could not have happened, had they been placed there by Ezra, and con- 
sequently been of the same authority with the letters. Eor had they 
been so, they w r ould certainly have been preserved in the Synagogues 



Arcanum punctuationis lib. 1. c. 4. 



xxiv Appendix. 

with the same care as the rest of the text. There can scarce airy other 
reason be given why they were not admitted thither ; but that when the 
Eoly Scriptures began first to be publickly read to the people in their 
Synagogues, there were no snch vowel points then in being ; and that 
when they afterwards came in use, being known to be of an human in- 
vention, they were for that reason never thought fit to be added to those 
sacred copies, "which were looked on as the true representatives of the 
original ; andf therefore they have been ever kept with the same care in the 
ark or sacred chest of the synagogue, as the original draught of the Law 
of Moses anciently was in the ark or sacred chest of the Tabernacle 
which was prepared for it ; and they are still so kept in the same manner 
among them even to this day. 

2. The ancient % various readings of the sacred text called KeriCetib, 
are all about the letters, and none about the vowel points, which seems 
manifestly to prove, that the vowel points were not anciently in being, 
or else were not then looked on as an authentic part of the text. 
For if they had, the variations of these would certainly have been taken 
notice of, as well as those of the letters. 

3. The % ancient Cabbalists draw none of their mysteries from the 
vowel points, but all from the letters, which is an argument either that 
these vowel points were not in use in their time, or else were not then 
looked on as an authentic part of the sacred text, For had they then 
been so, these triflers would certainly have drawn mysteries from the one 
as well as from the other, as the latter Cabbalists have done. 

4. If || we compare with the present pointed Hebrew Bibles, the 
version of the Septuagint, the Chaldee paraphrases, the fragments of 
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, or the Latin version of Jerom, we 
shall in several places find, that they did read the text otherwise, than 
according to the present punctuation ; which is a certain argument, that 
the pointed copies, if there were any such in their times, were not then 
held to be of any authority, for otherwise they would certainly have fol- 
lowed them. 

Neither § the Mishnah, nor the Gemara, either that of Jerusalem, or 
that of Babylon, do make any mention of these vowel points, altho' in 
several places there are such special occasions and reasons for them so 
to have done, that it can scarce be thought possible they could have- 
omitted it, if they had been in being, when those books were written, 
or if in being, had been looked on by the Jews of those times to be of 
any authority among them. Neither do we find ■* the least hint of them 
in Philo Judseus or Josephus, who are the oldest writers of the Jews, 
or in any of the ancient Christian writers for several hundred years after 
Christ. And although among them Origen and Jerom were well skilled 

f Buxtori Synagoga Judaica cap. 14. % Arcanum punctuationis lib. I. 

cap. 7. U Arcanum punctuationis lib. I. c. 5. || Arcanum punctuationis 

lib. I. cap. 8, 9, 10. § Arcanum punctuationis cap. 5. * Arcanum 

punctuationis lib. I. c. 10. 



4. Vowel Joints. xxv 

ill the Hebrew language, yet in none of their writings do they speak 
the least of them. Origen flourished in the third and Jeroin in the 
fifth century ; and the latter having lived a long while in Judsea, and 
there more especially applied himself to the study of the Hebrew learn- 
ing, and much conversed with the Jewish Rabbis for his improvement 
herein, it is not likely that he could have missed making some mention of 
them through all his voluminous works, if they had been either in 
being among the Jews in his time, or in any credit or authority with 
them, and that especially since in his commentaries, there were so many 
necessary occasions for his taking notice of them. And it cannot be 
deny'd but that this is a very strong argument against them. 

Many more arguments are urged on this side of the question. But 
the chief strength of what is said for it tying in these I have mentioned, 
I shall not trouble the reader with the rest, and that especially since 
some of them will not hold water. For to instance in one of them, 
great stress is laid on this to prove the vowel poiuts to be of late date, 
that their names are thought to be of late date, they being of the Chal- 
dee and not of the Hebrew dialect. But it is certain the Jews had the 
present names of their months from the Chaldeans, as well as the names 
of their vowels, and yet it is as certain, that notwithstanding this the 
names of these months were in use in the time of Ezra, for they are 
named in Scripture, both in the book of Ezra, and also in that of Nehe- 
miah, the former of which was written by him ; and why then might 
not the names of these vowels have been in Ezra's time too, notwith- 
standing this objection ? and this is all, which those on the other side 
contend for. But the other arguments which I have above recited, are 
of much greater weight. If any one would see all at large, what hath 
been said on this head, Cappellus's book, which I have already men- 
tioned, will fully furnish him herewith. 

But there have not been wanting learned men of the contrary opinion, 
and much hath been written for it, especially by the two Buxtorfs, the 
Father and the Son; their arguments, which carry the greatest weight 
with them, are these which follow. 

1. The * ancient books Bahir and Zohar, which are said to have 
been written, the one a little before, and the other a little after 
the time of our Saviour, make express and frequent mention of 
the vowel points ; which argument would be unanswerable 
against the later invention of them, could we be sure, that these books 
are as ancient, as the Jews say they are. But there are reasons sufficient 
to convince us, t that both of them are of a much later date. There 
are many particulars in the books themselves, which manifestly prove 



* Buxtorfius pater in Tiberiade c. 9. §. 3. Buxtorfius filius de punctorum 
antiquitate Part I, cap. 5. f Vide Arcanum punctuations lib. 2. cap. 3. & 

Buxtorfii Bibliothecam Rabbinicam in Bahir et Zohar. 

d* 



xxvi Appendix. 

them to be so: and for above a thousand years after the pretended 
times of their composure, they were never heard of among the Jews them- 
selves, nor were they ever quoted, or made mention of by any other 
writer during all that interval ; which gives abundant reason to conclude 
that till after these thousand years, they never had any being ; but that 
a false date of antiquity hath been fraudulently put to them to recom- 
mend them to the world with the greater credit. The latter of them 
hath been printed several times, but the other is still in manuscript. 
They are both Cabbalistical books, and the most they are remarkable for, 
is the obscurity of their style, and the strange, mysterious, and unintel- 
ligible stuff contained in them. 

2. That whereas it is said on the other side,that the Masorites of Tiberias 
invented the vowel points above five hundred years after Christ, this J 
appears very unlikely. For the Schools which the Jews had in Judaea, 
were then wholly dissipated and suppressed, and no learned men there 
left of sufficient ability for such a performance. Fov at that time all 
their learned men were removed into the province of Babylon, where they 
had their universities of Sora, Naherda, and Pombeditha, and nothing 
of their learning was then left in Judaea, that can make it probable that 
such a work could be done, either at Tiberias or any where else in that 
land, in those times. And besides, were the thing ever so likely, there 
is no authority for it sufficient to support the assertion. Elias Levita 
indeed saith it, and Aben Ezra who wrote about the middle of the 
twelfth century, is quoted for it ; but higher up it cannot be traced. 
Tor there is nothing said in any ancienter writer either of their being 
invented by the Masorites at Tiberias, or any where else after the Talmud ; 
and it is not likely that, if this had been so late an invention, a matter 
so remarkable, and of such great moment, could have been wholly passed 
over in silence without the least mention made of it by any of the Jew- 
ish writers. But % to all this it is replied, that in historical matters it 
is not to be regarded what the Jews write, or what they omit concern- 
ing them. That of all nations in the world, that have pretended to any 
sort of learning, they have taken the least care to record past transac- 
tions, and have done it very bunglingly, and in a manner that looks 
more like fable than truth, wherever they have pretended to it. And it 
is certain there were Jews eminent in their way of learning at Tiberias 
in St Jeromes time. For he tells us he made use of them, and he died 
not till the year of our Lord 420, which was but eighty years before the 
time assigned ; and it must be acknowledged that nothing of this can 
be gainsaid. And it is farther added by those, who thus reply, that 



X Buxtorfius pater in Tiberiade cap. 5, 6. 7. Buxtorfius filius de antiquitato 
punctorum Part. 2. cap. 11. % Cappellus in Arcano punctationis 

lib. 2. cap. 15. 



4. Vowel Points. xxvii 

tliey do not positively pin down the invention of these vowel points 
either to the time or place, which Elias Levita assigneth for it, but 
only say, that it must be after the time of the writings of Jerom, 
and after the time of the composure of the Talmud, because in neither 
of these any mention is made of them, and this will necessarily carry it 
down below the five hundredth year of our Lord ; but whether it were 
then immediately done, or two or three hundred years afterward, or at 
Tiberias, or elsewhere, they will not take upon them certainly to affirm. 
That the vowel points were not affixed to the text by Ezra, that they 
are not of a divine, but only of an human original, and first introduced 
into use after the writing of the Talmud, is all that they positively assert 
concerning this matter; and that whatsoever is said beyond this is only 
guess and conjecture, which doth not at all affect tlie question, and 
therefore they will not contend about it. 

3. If by the Masorites, who are said to have invented these vowel 
points, are meant the authors of the present Masorah, which is printed 
with the great bibles of Venice and Basil, it is || certain they cannot be 
the inventors of these points, lor a great part of their criticisms is 
upon the vowel points, which must necessarily prove them to have been 
long before fixed and settled. Tor none use to criticise upon their 
own works. To § which it is replied, that there were Masorites from 
the time of Ezra and the men of the great Synagogue, down to the time 
of Ben Asher and Ben Nepthali, who flourished about the year of our 
Lord 1030, that some of these invented the points sometime after the 
making of the Talmud, and that after that some of those who succeeded 
them, perchance two or three hundred years after, made these criticisms 
and remarks upon them. Eor the Masorah that is now printed in the 
bibles above mentioned, is a collection and abridgment of all the chief 
remarks and criticisms, which those men did make upon the Hebrew 
text, from their first beginning to the time I have mentioned. But of 
this I shall have occasion to speak more at large by and by. 

4. That when the Hebrew language ceased to be the mother tongue 
of the Jews as it is agreed on all hands that it did after the Babylonish 
Captivity, it * was scarce possible to teach that language without these 
vowel points ; and this is the best and strongest argument, that is urged 
on this side for their having been always in use from that time. 

5. That if it be allowed that the present vowel points are not of 
the same authority with the letters, but are only of a late and human 
invention, it will weaken the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and leave 
the sacred text to an arbitrary and uncertain reading and interpretation ; 
which will give too much to the Papists, whose main design is to de- 



ll Buxtorfius pater in Tiberiade cap. 6. Buxtorfius Alius de antiquitate punc- 
torum Part 2. cap. 6. § Arcanum punctationis lib. 2. cap. 10. * Buxtor- 

fius de antiquitate punctorum Part. 2. cap. 10. 



xxviii Appendix, 

stroy the authority and certainty of the Holy Scriptures, that thereby 
they may make room for the traditions of their Church, and the decisions 
of the infallible guide, which they pretend to have therein. And to 
avoid this ill constquence is indeed the most prevailing cause, that hath 
drawn into this opinion most of those learned protestants, that contend 
for it ; but to answer both these last arguments, and settle the whole 
of this controversy, I shall lay down what appears to me to be the truth 
of the matter, in these following positions. 

I. That the vowel points having never been received by the Jews 
into their Synagogues, this seems to be a certain evidence, that they 
were never anciently looked on by them as an authentic part of the 
Holy Scripture of the Old Testament, but reckoned only as an human 
invention added for the easier reading of the text, after the Hebrew 
ceased from being a vulgar language among them. And the Jews hav- 
ing been till the time of Christ the true Church of God, and his chosen 
people, t to whom those Scriptures and sacred Oracles of God were 
given and committed, through their hands the Church of Christ hath 
received them, and their evidence is that, which is to witness and 
determine unto us, what part of them is authentic Scripture, and what 
is not. 

II. It is most likely, that these vowel points were the invention of 
the Masorites a little after the time of Ezra. That they came 
into use a little after the time of Ezra seems to be proved by the 
need, that was then of them for the reading and teaching of the Hebrew 
text. And that they were invented by the Masorites seems most likely, 
because of the business and profession, which these men employed them- 
selves in. Eor, 

1st, These Masorites J were a set of men, whose profession it was to 
write out copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to criticize upon them, 
and also to preserve and teach the true readings of them , and what 
they observed and taught in order hereto, is by the Jews called the 
Masorah. But this tradition reached no farther than the readings of the 
Hebrew Scriptures. Eor, as the Jews held a tradition of the true interpre- 
tations of the Holy Scriptures, (which I have already spoken of) so also did 
they hold another of the true readings of them, as in the original Hebrew 
language. And this last they will have, as to the law, to be a constitu- 
tion of Moses from Mount Sinai, as well as the former. Eor their doc- 
trine is, that when God gave unto Moses the law in Mount Sinai, he 
taught him first the true readings of it, and secondly the true interpre- 
tations of it ; and that both these were handed down from generation to 
generation by oral tradition only, till at length the readings were written 
by the accents and vowels, in like manner as the interpretations were by 
the Mishna and Gemara. The former they call Masorah, which 

f Romans iii, 2. t Elise Levitse Masoreth Hammasoreth. Buxtorfius 

in Tiberiade. Waltoni Prolegom. 8. 



4. Vowel Points. xxix 

signifyeth tradition, and the other they call Cabbala, which signifyeth 
reception j but both of them denote the same thing, that is, a knowledge 
delivered down from generation to generation ; in the doing of which 
there being tradition on the one hand, and reception on the other, that, 
which relates to the readings of the Hebrew Scriptures, hath its name 
from the former, and that which relates to the interpretations of them, 
from the latter. And what they say of this, as to the law, they say also 
of it, as to the Prophets and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures ; that is, 
that the true readings of them, as well as the true interpretations of 
them, were delivered down by oral tradition from those, who were the 
first penmen of them; to whom they say God revealed botli at the same 
time, whem he revealed to them the word itself. As those, who 
studied and taught the Cabbala, w r ere called the Cabbalists ; so those, 
who studied and taught the Masorah, were called the Masorites. For 
although the word Cabbala be now restrained to signify the mystical 
interpretations of the Scriptures only, and in the common usage of 
speech now among the Jews they alone are called Cabbalists, who give 
themselves up to these dotages ; yet in the true and genuine meaning 
of the word the Cabbala extends to all manner of traditions, which are 
of the interpretative part of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Cabbalist 
is the general name of all those, who professed the study and knowledge 
of them. And they were all those, whom under the names of Tannaim, 
Amoraim, Seburaim, &c. I ha\<e already made mention of. And as 
these Cabbalists first began a little after the time of Ezra, so also did 
the Masorites ; and their whole business, and profession being to 
study the true readings of the Hebrew text, and to preserve and teach 
the same, they are justly held the most likely to have invented the 
vowel points, because the whole use of those points is to serve to 
this purpose. 

And 2dly, this use of them being absolutely necessary from the time 
that the Hebrew language ceased to be vulgarly spoken (as it certainly 
did in the time of Ezra) we have sufficient reason from hence to 
conclude, that soon after that time the use of them must have been 
introduced. Eor from this time the Hebrew language being only to be 
acquired by study and instruction, and that being necessary to be 
first acquired, before the sacred text could be read, which was written 
therein ; as there was need of such a profession of men to take care 
hereof, that is, to teach and bring up others to know the language, and 
also to read the Scriptures, as written in it ; so w 7 as there as much need 
of these vowel points to help them herein, it being hard to conceive, 
how they could do either without them, or some other such marks, 
that might serve them for the same purpose. What the Jews tell us 
of preserving the true readings only by tradition and memory, is too 
absurd to be swallowed by any one. Eor had there been nothing else 
but tradition and memory in this case to help them, the load would 
have been too great to have been carried by any one's memory, but all 



xxx Appendix. 

must necessarily have dropp'd in the way, and been lost. But the truth 
is, there is no need of depending only on memory, in this case. For 
to those, who thoroughly know the language, the letters alone with the 
context are sufficient to determine the reading, as now they are in all 
other Hebrew books. For, excepting the Bible, few other books in 
that language are pointed. All their % Rabbinical puthors, of which 
there are a great number, are all unpointed, and yet all that understand 
the language, can read them without points, as well as if they had 
them, yea and much better too, and not miss the true reading. But 
the difficulty is as to those, who do not understand the language. For 
how they could be ever taught to read it without vowels, after it ceased 
to be vulgarly spoken, it is scarce possible to conceive. When all 
learnt it from their cradles, it was no hard matter for those, who thus 
understood the language, to learn to read it by the letters only without 
the vowels. But when the Hebrew became a dead language the case 
was altered. For then instead of understanding it first in order to 
read it, they were first to read it in order to understand it ; and 
therefore having not the previous knowledge of the language to direct 
them herein, they must necessarily have had some other helps, whereby 
to know with what vowel every syllable was to be pronounced, and to 
give them this help, the vowel points seem certainly to have been 
invented; and therefore the time of this invention cannot be placed 
later than the time, when they became necessary, that is when the 
Hebrew became a dead language, though perchance it was not perfected 
and brought to that order, in which now it is, till some ages after. It 
is acknowledged on all hands, that the reading of the Hebrew language 
could never have been learned after it ceased to be vulgarly spoken, 
without the help of vowels ; but they who will not allow the points to 
have been so ancient, || tell us, that the letters Aleph, He, Yau, Yod, 
which they call Matres Lectionis, then served for vowels. But there 
are a great number of words in the Hebrew way of writing, both in the 
Bible and in all other books of that language, in which none of these 
letters are to be found, and scarce any in which some syllables are not 
without them, and how then can these supply the place of vowels, and 
every where help the reading instead of them, since every where they 
are not to be found .? besides, there are none of these letters which have 
not, according as they are placed in different words, the different sounds 
of every one of the vowels some time or other annexed to them ; and 
how then can they determine the pronunciation of any one of them ? 
as for example, the letter Aleph hath not always the pronunciation of 



If All those authors as originally written are without points. But the Mishna 
and their Machzor have lately had points put to them, but still they are reckoned 
the best Editions that are without them. 

|| Arcanum Punctationis lib. 1. cap. 18: 



4. Vowel Points, xxxi 

the vowel fay] but sometimes of [o,] sometimes of [i,] sometimes of [o,] 
and sometimes of [u,] according as it is fonnd in different words ; and 
the same is to be said of all the rest. And farther, all the other oriental 
languages have in their Alphabets these same letters, which they call 
Matres Lectionis, as well as the Hebrew, as for example, the Syriac, the 
Arabic, the Turkish, the Persian, the Malayan, &c. and yet they have 
their vowels too to help the reading ; neither can we find that they 
were ever without them; though such as are well versed in any of 
these languages, read them readily without vowels, and all the books, 
epistles, orders, and publick instruments, that are in them, are generally 
so written. And why then should we think the Hebrew had not such 
vowels also, especially when after that language had ceased to be 
vulgarly spoken, there was such necessity for them ? The unpointed 
words in Hebrew are the same with abbreviations in Latin; and if it 
be impracticable for any novice to learn the Latin language by books, 
wherein all the words are so abbreviated, that only two or three letters 
of them stand for the whole, we may justly infer, that it is as impracti- 
cable for any who is a stranger to the Hebrew, ever to learn it by books, 
wherein all the words are unpointed ; yea, and much more so. Por the 
abbreviations in Latin are certain, such an abbreviation being always 
put for a word, and for none other ; but it is otherwise in the abbrevia- 
tions of the unpointed Hebrew, for in them all the vowels being left 
out, the remaining letters which are to stand for the whole, may, as 
pronounced with different vowels, be different words ; as for example 
there are two Conjugations in Hebrew, one called Pihel, and the other 
Puhal ; the former is an active, and the other a passive, and both are 
written throughout all their moods and tenses (except the infinite) with 
the same letters, and they as differently pointed may be either the one 
or the other ; and although in the reading, the context may determine 
the active from the passive, yet if we do not by pointed books first 
learn, what vowels properly belong to the one, and what to the other, 
how can we know with which to read or pronounce either of them in 
the unpointed books? and abundance of other such instances maybe 
given in the Hebrew language, wherein the same letters as differently 
pointed, make different words, and of different significations, and how 
then can a learner know, what different vowels, and what different 
pronunciations belong to these different words, if he be not first 
taught it by the points, or some other such marks of the same signi- 
fication ? All that can be said against this is, that the Samaritan hath no 
such vowels ; but although it be now growm to be a dead language, as 
well as the Hebrew, it is taught and learnt without them. To this I 
answer, that it is true, that all the books, which we have as yet brought 
us into these Western Parts in the Samaritan character, are written 
only with the letters, and without any such marks, as the Hebrew^ bibles 
now have to denote the vow T els, or any other instead of them. But this 
doth not prove, that they have no such vow r els in use among them ; 



xxxii Appendix. 

multitude of books are brought us out of the east in Hebrew, Syriac, 
Arabic, Turkish, and Persian, all written with the letters only without 
any vowel marks; but this doth not prove that they have none, for it's 
certain that they all have them, and use them, where there is need of 
them; and therefore it is no evidence, but that the Samaritan may 
have them also, though all the books which we have hitherto seen in it, 
are without them. The sect of the Samaritans are those only,, who use 
this character and language (if we may call it a language, for it is no 
more than the Hebrew in another character) and they are now dwindled 
into a very small number, and those dispersed abroad into several parts 
of the east. And what their practice may be as to the use of vowel 
figures in their other writings (though none that have as yet come to 
our hands have any such) we have no account of, either pro or con, and 
therefore we can argue nothing from it. Only we say, that as to this, 
as well as the Hebrew, and all other such languages, in which books are 
ordinarily written with the letters only, it seems almost impracticable 
for any one to learn to read those books, after the languages are become 
dead languages, without some marks put to the letters to denote the 
vowels, with which they are to be pronounced. Without a previous 
knowledge of the language it is impossible to be done, and therefore the 
only way to make it possible, is to learn the Language first by rote, and 
when a perfect knowledge hath been gotten of it this way, then only 
can it be practicable to learn to read that language by the letters only 
without any vowel marks. But this is such a great way about, such a 
tedious and operose method of learning it, that we must look on those 
to be a very dull and stupid sort of people, who being in this case, 
could find out no other way to help themselves in it, and that especially 
in the Jews' case, since their neighbours on each side of them (I mean the 
Syrians and Arabians) had vowel figures, and they might easily from 
them either have taken the same, or learnt to have framed others like 
them. Though the Greeks in their language have the vowels inter- 
mixed with the letters, yet it no sooner became a dead language (I 
mean the learned Greek, from which the modern doth as much differ, 
as the Chahlee from the Hebrew) but they found out accents, spirits, 
and several other marks to help those who were to learn it, which were 
never in use among them before. And so also are there in the Latin 
several such marks ; as for example, a mark over the [o] and [e] at 
the end of adverbs, to distiguish them from nouns ending in those vowels, 
and the mark over- the [a] ablative to distinguish it from the [a] 
nominative, &e, None of which marks were ever used, while the Latin 
language was vulgarly spoken, but were invented for the help of those, 
who were to learn it afterwards. And is it possible that the Jews only 
were so stupid and dull, that they aione should find out no such helps, 
after their language became a dead language, for the easier learning 
and reading of it ; but on the contrary should have continued so many 
hundred years after, not only without any marks for accents, pauses or 



4. Vowel Points. xxxiii 

stops, but also without any figures so much as to denote the vowels, 
with which their letters were to be pronounced ? The necessity which 
was in this case for such vowel figures, evidently proves that they must 
have had them, and that as soon as they needed them, which was as 
soon as their language became a dead language, and was thenceforth to 
be learnt by books (and not by common converse) as all other dead lan- 
guages are. And therefore this happening about the time of Ezra (as 
hath been already shewn) it must follow, that about that time, or a little 
after, the use of such vowel figures must have been introduced into the 
Hebrew Language. Whether they were the same vowel points that are 
now used, or other such like signs to serve for the same purpose, is not 
material, and therefore I shall raise no inquiry about it. Only 1 cannot 
but say, that since necessity first introduced the use of them, it is most 
likely, that no more were at first used, than there was a necessity for, 
but that the augmenting of them beyond this to the number of fifteen, 
proceeded only from the over-nicety of the after- Masorites. Three 
served the Arabs, and five most other nations, and no doubt at first they 
exceeded not this number among the Jews. And it is most likely that 
the same profession of men, who thus invented the vowel points, were 
also the authors of all those other inventions, which have been added 
to the Hebrew text for the easier reading and better understanding of 
it. The dividing of the law into sections, and the sections into verses, 
seems to have been one of the first of their works. t Originally every 
book of the Hebrew Bible was written as in one verse, without any dis- 
tinction of sections, chapters, verses or words. But when the publick 
reading of the law was brought into use among the Jews, and some part 
of it read every sabbath in their synagogues, it became necessary to 
divide the whole into 54 sections, that it night thereby be known, what 
part was to be read on each sabbath, and the whole gone over every 
year, as hath been afore observed. And when the disuse of the Hebrew 
language among them made it necessary, that it should not only be 
read to them in the original Hebrew, but also interpreted in the Chaldee, 
which -was then become their vulgar tongue, there w<as also a necessity 
of dividing the sections into verses, that they might be a direction both 
to the reader and the interpreter where to make their stop at every alter- 
native reading and interpreting, till they had verse by verse gone through 
the whole section. And in imitation hereof, the like division was after- 
wards made in all the rest of the Holy Scriptures. And a like necessity 
about the same time introduced the use of the vowel points, after they 
were forced to teach the Hebrew language by book, on its ceasing to be 
any longer vulgarly spoken among the people. And some time after 
the accents and pauses were invented for the same purpose, that is, for 
the easier and more distinct reading of the text, for which they are 



f Elias Levita in Masoreth Hammasoreth. 

e 



xxxiv Appendix. 

helps, as mr as tney supply the place of a comma, a colon, or a full stop 
(which Athnak, Revia, and Silluk do) but as for the musical use, for 
which only the others were added to the Hebrew text, they are now 
wholly insignificant, it being long since absolutely forgot for what use 
they served. 

III. These vowel points were many ages only of private use among 
the Masorites, whereby they preserved to themselves the true readings 
of the Holy Scriptures, and taught them to their scholars ; but they 
•were not received into the divinity schools, till after the making of the 
Talmud. For there were two sorts of Schools anciently among the 
Jew r s, the schools of the Masorites, and the schools of the llabbis. The 
former taught only the Hebrew language, and to read the scriptures in 
it, the others to understand the scriptures, and all the interpretations of 
them, and were the great doctors of divinity among them, to whom the 
Masorites were as much inferior, as the teachers of grammar schools 
among us are to the professors of divinity in our universities. And 
therefore as long as tnesc vowel points went no higher, than the schools 
of these Masorites, they were of no regard amoug their learned men, 
nor taken any notice of by them. And this is the reason that we find 
no mention of them either in the Talmud, or in the writings of Origen 
or Jerom. But some time after the making of the Talmud, in what 
year or age is uncertain, the punctuation of the Masorites having been 
judged by t'se Jewish doctors to be as useful and necessary a way for the 
preserving of the traditionary readings of the Hebrew scriptures, as the 
Mislmah and Gemara had been then found to be for the preserving of 
the traditional rites, ceremonies, and doctrines of their religion, it was 
taken into their divinity schools ; and it having been there reviewed and 
corrected by the learnedest of their Rabbis, and so formed and settled 
by them, as to be made to contain and mark out all those authentic 
readings, which they held to have been delivered down unto them by 
tradition from Moses and the prophets, who were the first penmen of 
them ; ever since that time the points in the Hebrew scriptures have 
been by the Jews held of the same authority for the reading of them, 
as the Mishna and the Gemara for the interpreting of them, and conse- 
quently as unalterable as the letters themselves. For they reckon them 
both of divine original, only with this difference, that the letters, they 
say, were written by the holy penmen themselves, but the readings as 
now marked by the points, were delivered down from them by tradition 
only. However they have never received them into their synagogues, 
but have there still continued the use of the Holy Scriptures in unpoint- 
ed copies, and so do even to this day, because they so received them 
from the first holy penmen of them. 

IV. All those criticisms in the Masorah, that are upon the points, 
were made by such Masorites as lived after the points were received into 
the divinity schools of the Jews. JFor this profession of men continued 



4. Vowel Points. xxxv 

from the time of Ezra, and the men of the great synagogue, to that of 
Ben Asher and Ben Nephthali, J who were two famous Masorites, that 
lived about the year of our Lord 1030, and were the last of them. 
For they having, after many years' labour spent herein, each of them 
published a copy of the whole Hebrew text, as correct as they could 
make it, the eastern Jews have followed that of Ben Nephthali, and the 
Western Jews have followed that of Ben Asher, and all that hath been 
done ever since is exactly to copy after them, both as to the points and 
accents, as well as to the letters, without making any more corrections 
or Masoritical criticisms or observations upon either. These Masorites, 
who were the authors of the Masorah that is now extant, were a mon- 
strous trifling sort of men, whose criticisms and observations went no 
higher, than the numbering of the verses, words, and letters, of every 
book in the Hebrew bible, and the marking out which was the middle 
verse, word, and letter in each of them, and the making of other such 
poor and low observations concerning them, as are not worth any man's 
reading, or taking notice of, whatever Richard Simon the Frenchman 
may say to the contrary. 

V. These vowel points having been added to the text with the best 
care of those who best understood the language, and having und-ergone 
the review and correction of many ages, it may be reckoned that this 
work hath been done in the perfectest manner that it can be done by 
man's art, and that none w T ho shall undertake a new punctuation of the 
whole, can do it better ; however since it was done only by man's art, 
it is no authentic part of the holy scriptures, and therefore these points 
are not so unalterably fixed to the text, but that a change may be made 
in them, when the nature of the context, or the analogy of grammar, or 
the style of the language, or any thing else shall give a sufficient reason 
for it. And that especially since, how exactly soever they may have 
been at any time affixed to the text, they are still liable to the mistakes 
of transcribers and printers, and by reason of their number, the small- 
ness of their figures, and their position under the letters, are more likely 
to suffer by them, than any other sort of writing whatsoever. 

"VI. It doth not from hence follow, that the sacred text will therefore 
be left to an arbitrarv and uncertain reading. For the genuine reading 
is as certain in the unpointed Hebrew books, as the genuine sense is in 
the pointed ; the former indeed may sometimes be mistaken or perverted 
and so may the latter ; and therefore whether the books be pointed or 
unpointed, this doth not alter the case to one who thoroughly knows the 
language, and will honestly read the same. Ignorant men may indeed 
mistake the reading, and ill men may pervert it : but those who are know- 



X Buxtorfius pater in praefatione adTiberiadem. Buxtorfius Alius de antiqui- 
tate punctorum, Part I. cap. 15. Zacutus in Juchasin. Shalsheleth Haccabala, 
Zemacli David, Elias Levita, &c. 



xxxti Appendix. 

ing and honest can do neither. For, except the bible, no other Hebrew 
book is pointed, unless some few of late by modern hands. All their 
rabbinical authors are unpointed, and all their other books, to which 
the moderns have in some editions added points, were originally pub- 
lished without them, and so they still are in the best editions : and yet 
this doth not hinder, but that every one who understands the Hebrew 
language, can rightly read ifoem and rightly understand them. Were 
I to make my choice, 1 would desire to have the bible with points, and 
all other Hebrew books without them. I would desire the bible with 
points, because they tell us how the Jews did anciently read the text. 
And T would have all other Hebrew books without them, because in 
such they rather hinder and clog the reading, than help it, to any one 
that thoroughly knows the language. And all that undertake to point 
such books, may not always do it according to the true and genuine 
reading, as we have an instance in the pointed edition of the Mishnah 
published in octavo by Manasseh Ben Israel at Amsterdam. And there- 
fore it is much better to be left free to our own apprehensions for the 
genuine reading, than be confined by another man's to that which may 
not be the genuine reading. Indeed to read without vowels may look 
very strange to such, who are conversant only with the modern European 
languages, in which often several consonants come together without a 
vowel, and several vowels without a consonant, and several of both often 
go to make up one sjdlable, and therefore if in them the consonants 
were only written, it would be hard to find out what may be the word ; 
but it is quite otherwise in the Hebrew. Tor in that language there is 
never more than one vowel in one syllable, and in most syllables only 
one consonant, and in none more than two, and therefore in most words 
the consonants confine us to the vowels, and determine how the word 
is to be read, and if not, at least the context doth. It must be acknow- 
ledged, that there are several combinations of the same consonants, which 
as placed in the same order, are susceptible of different punctuations, and 
thereby make different words and of different significations, and there- 
fore when put alone are of an uncertain reading ; but it is quite other- 
wise when they are joined in context with other words. For where the 
letters joined in the same word do not determine the reading, there the 
words joined in the same sentence always do ; and this is no more than 
what we find in all other languages, and very often in our own. For 
we have many equivocal words, which being put alone are of an uncer- 
tain signification, but are always determined in the context. As for 
example, the word Let in English when put alone by itself, hath not 
only two different, but two quite contrary meanings. For it signifies 
to permit, and it signifies also to hinder ; but it never doth so in the 
context, but is thereby always so determined either to the one or to the 
other, that no one is ever led into a mistake hereby. And the same "is 
to be said of all such words in Hebrew, as having the same letters are 



5. Targums. xxxvii 

susceptible of various punctuations. The letters here cannot determine 
to the punctuation, because they being in each the same, are indifferent 
to either. But what the letters cannot do, when the word is put alone 
by itself, that the other words always do, with which it is joined in the 
context. And it is want of attention, or want of apprehension, if any 
one thoroughly skilFd in the Hebrew language makes a mistake herein ; 
which may happen in the reading of any other books whatsoever. And 
therefore though the Hebrew bibles had never been pointed, we need 
not be sent either to the Church of Some, or any where else, for the 
fixing of the readings of it, the letters alone with the context being suf- 
ficient, when we thoroughly understand the language, to determine us 
thereto. 

There is in the * Church of St Dominic in Bononia a copy of the 
Hebrew Scriptures, kept with a great deal of care, which they pretend 
to be the original copy written by Ezra himself; and therefore it is 
there valued at so high a rate, that great sums of money have been 
borrowed by the Bononians upon the pawn of it, and again repaid for 
its redemption. It is written in a very fair character upon a sort of 
leather, and made up in a roll according to the ancient manner ; but it 
having the vowel points annexed, and the writing being fresh and fair 
without any decay, both these particulars prove the novelty of that copy. 



5. On the Targums or Chaldee Paraphrases. 

From the same work, Tart II, vol. ii, 

page 531. 

The Chaldee paraphrases are translations of the scriptures of the Old 
Testament made directly from the Hebrew text into the language of 
the Chaldeeans, which language was anciently used through all Assyria, 
Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine; and is still the language 
of the churches of the Nestorian and Maronite Christians in those 
eastern parts, in the same manner as the Latin is the language of the 
popish churches here in the west. And therefore these paraphrases are 



* Fini Adrian! Flagelhim Judaeorum lib. 9. c. 2. Tissardi Ambacei Gramma- 
tica Hebraea. Hottingeri Thesaurus Philologicus p. 1 15 & p. 513. 



xxxvrii Appendix. 

called* Targums, because tliey were versions or translations of the 
Hebrew text into this language. For the word Targum signifieth in 
Chaldee an interpretation or version of one language into another, and 
may properly be said of any such version or translation; but it is most 
commonly by the Jews appropriated to these Chaldee paraphrases. For 
beiug among them what were most eminently such, they therefore had 
this name by way of eminency especially given unto them. 

These . arguins were made for the use and instruction of the vulgar 
Jews after their return from the Babylonish captivity. For altho' many 
of the better sort still retained the knowledge of the Hebrew language 
during that captivity, and taught it their children ; and the holy scrip- 
tures that were delivered after that time,f excepting only some parts of 
Dauiel and Ezra and one verse in Jeremiah, were all written therein ; yet 
the common people by having so long conversed with the Babylonians 
learned their language, and forgot their own. It happened indeed other- 
wise to the children of Israel in Egypt. For altho' they lived there 
above three times as long as the Babylonish captivity lasted, yet they 
still preserved the Hebrew language among them, and brought it back 
entire with them into Canaan. The reason of this was, in Egypt they 
all lived together in the land of Goshen; but on their being carried 
captive by the Babylouians, they were dispersed all over Chaldsea and 
Assyria, and being there intermixed with the people of the land had 
their main converse with them, and therefore were forced to learn their 
language, and this soon induced a disuse of their own among them ; by 
which means it came to pass, that after their return the common people, 
especially those of them who had been bred up in that captivity, under- 
stood not the holy scriptures in the Hebrew language, nor their 
posterity after them. And therefore when Ezra read the law to 
the people,J he had several persons standing by him w r ell skilPd in 
both the Chaldee and Hebrew languages, who interpreted to the people 
in Chaldee what lie first read to them in Hebrew. And afterwards when 
the method was established of dividing the law into 54 sections, and of 
reading oue of them every week in their synagogues (according as hath 
been already described) the same course of reading to the people the 
Hebrew text first, and then interpreting it to them in Chaldee, was still 
continued. For when the reader had read one verse in Hebrew, an 
interpreter standing- by did render it in Chaldee, and then the next verse 
being read in Hebrew, it was in li£e manner interpreted in the same 



* Buxtorfii Lexicon Rabbinicum Col. 2644. f The Book of Daniel is 

written in Chaldee from the 4th verse of the second Chapter to th° end of the 7th 
Chapter, and the Book of Ezra from the 8th verse of the 4th Chapter to the 27th 
verse of the 7th Chapter. In the Book of Jeremiah the 11th verse of the 10th 
Chapter is only written in that Language, all the rest of it is in Hebrew. 
1 Nehemiah viii. 4 — 8. 



5. Targums. xxxix 

language as before, and so on from verse to verse was every verse alter- 
natively read first in Hebrew, and then interpreted in Chaldee to the 
end of the section; and this first gave occasion for the making of 
Chaldee versions for the help of these interpreters. And they thence- 
forth became necessary not only for their help in the public synagogues, 
but also for the help of the people at home in their families, that they 
might there have the scriptures for their private readiug in a language 
which they understood. 

For first as synagogues multiplied among the Jews beyond the 
number of able interpreters, it became necessary that such versions 
should be made for the help of the less able. This was done at first 
only for the law, because at first the law only was publicly read in their 
synagogues till the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes , but after that 
time lessons being read out of the prophets in those religious assemblies, 
as well as out of the law, the same reason rendered it necessary, 
that Chaldee versions should be made of these scriptures also. And 
2dly, the use of the people (which was the other reason for the 
composing of those versions) made this necessary for all the scripture, 
as well as for the law and Prophets. Eor all scripture being given for 
our edification, all ought for this end to have them in a language which 
they understood. For when God gave Ms law unto Israel,^" he 
enjoined, that they should have his commandments, statutes and 
judgments always in their hearts, that they should meditate on them 
day and night, teach them their children, and talk of them, when they 
did sit in their houses, and when they walked by the way, and when 
they lay down, and when they rose up; and that all might be the 
better enabled to perform all this, it was strictly enjoined by a consti- 
tution of the elders from ancient times, || that every man should have by 
hiin at his home a copy of the Holy Scriptures fairly written out either 
by his own, or if he could not write himself, by some other hand, for 
his instruction herein. But how could this be done, if they had those 
Scriptures only in a language, which they did not understand? It was 
necessary therefore, that as they had the Hebrew text for the sake of 
the original, so also that they should have the Chaldee version for the 
sake of helping them to understand it. Indeed the letter of the law 
which commands what I have here mentioned, extends no further than 
to the five books of Moses : for no more of the Holy Scriptures were 
then written, when that law was given ; and also the constitution above- 
mentioned, which was superadded by the elders, is by positive words 
limited thereto. But the reason of the thing reacheth the whole word 
of God. For since all of it is given for our instruction, we are all 



H Deuteron. vi. 6—9. & Ch. xi. 18, 19, 20. || Maimonides in Tephil. 

cap. 7. 



xl Appendix. 

equally obliged to know each part of it, as well as the other. And 
therefore this caused, that at length the whole Scriptures were thus 
translated from the Hebrew into the Chaldean language for the sake of 
those who could not otherwise understand them. For to lock up from 
the people in an unknown language that word of God, which was given 
to lead them to everlasting life, was a thing that was not thought 
agreeable either with reason or piety in those times. 

This work having been attempted by diverse persons at different 
times, and by some of them with different views (for some of them were 
written as versions for the publick use of the synagogues, and others as 
paraphrases and commentaries for the private instruction of the people) 
hence it hath come to pass, that there were anciently many of these 
Targums, and of different sorts, in the same manner as there anciently 
were many versions of the same Holy Scriptures into the Greek 
language, made with like different views; of which we have sufficient 
proof in the Octapla of Origen. No doubt anciently there were 
many more of these Targums, than we now know of, which have 
been lost in the length of time. Whether there were any of them of 
the same composure on the whole scriptures is not any where said. 
Those that are now remaining were composed by different persons, and 
on different parts of Scripture, some on one part, and others on other parts, 
and are in all of these eight sorts following; 1. That of Onkelos on the 
five books of Moses. 2. That of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the prophets, 
that is on Joshua, Judges, the two books of Samuel, the two books of 
Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets. 

3. That on the law which is ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel. 

4. The Jerusalem Targum on the law. 5. The Targum on the five 
lesser books called the Megilloth, i. e. Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, The 
Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. 6. The second 
Targum on Esther. 7. The Targum § of Joseph the one-eyed on the 
book of Job, the Psalms, and the Proverbs, and 8. The Targum on the 
first and second book of Chronicles. On Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel, 
there is no Targum at all. The reason given by some for this is, because 
a great part of those books is written in the Chaldee language, and 
therefore is no need of a Chaldee paraphrase upon them. This indeed 
is true for Daniel and Ezra, but not for Nehemiah. For that book is 
all originally written in the Hebrew language. No doubt anciently 
there were Chaldee paraphrases on all the Hebrew 7 parts of those books, 
though now lost. It was long supposed that there were no Targums 



§ He is commonly called Josephus Caecus, or Josephus the blind. This is not 
to be understood as if he were blind of both eyes, for then he could not have 
done this work. The word in Hebrew, by which he is so denominated, signifieth 
Lnscum one that is blind of one eye, as well as Csecum, one that is blind of 
both eyes. 



5. Takgums. xli 

on the two books of Chronicles, because none such were known, till * 
they were lately published by Beckius at Augsburg in Germany, that 
on the first book, Anno Domini 1680, and that on the second 
Anno 16S3. 

As the Targuin of Onkelos is the first in order of place, as being on 
the Pentateuch, which is the first part of the Hoh Scriptures ; so I think 
it is not to be doubted, but that it is the first also in order of time, and 
the ancientest that was written of all that are now extant. The t 
Jewish writers, though they allow him to have been for some time of 
his life contemporary with Jonathan Ben Uzziel the author of the 
second Targum above-mentioned, yet make him much the younger of 
the two. For they tell us that Jonathan was one of the prime scholars 
of Hillel, who died about the time when our Saviour was born; but 
that Onkelos survived Gamaliel the elder, Paul's master (who was the 
grandson of Hillel, and died not till eighteen years before the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem) for they relate, that Onkelos assisted at the funeral 
of tins Gamaliel, and provided for it seventy pound of frankincense at 
his own charge. But there are several reasons which prevail with me to 
think Onkelos the aucienter of the two; the chief and principalest of 
them is the style, in which his Targum is written. That part of Daniel 
and Ezra, which is in Chaldee, is the truest standard, whereby to try 
the purity of the Chaldee language. For this language, as well as all 
others, being in a constant flux, and in every age deviating from what 
it was in the former, it follows from hence, that the further any Chaldee 
writing doth in its style differ from that ancient standard, the later 
certainly it is; and the nearer it comes to it, we may as certainly 
conclude, the aucienter it is. But no Chaldee writing now extant 
coming nearer to the style of what is written in that language by Daniel 
and Ezra, than the Targum of Onkelos, this to me proves that Targum 
of all others to be the most ancient. And I can see no other reason, 
why Jonathan Ben Uzziel, when he undertook to compose his Targum 
should pass over the law, and begin with the prophets, but that he 
found Onkelos had done this work before him, and with that success in 
the performance, which he could not exceed. This Targum of Onkelcs 
is rather a version, than a paraphrase. For it renders the Hebrew text 
word for word, and for the most part accurately and exactly, and it is 
by much the best of all this sort. And therefore it has always been 
had in esteem among the Jews much above all the other Targums, and 
bein^ set to the same musical notes with the Hebrew text, it is therebv 
made capable of being read in the same tone with it in their publick 



* Leusden in philologo Hebraeo-mixto dissertatione 5ta sect. 5. 
+ Zacutus in Juchasin. Gedaliah in Shalsheleth Habbabbala. David Ganz 
in Zemach David, aliique. 



xlii Appendix. 

assemblies. And that it was accordingly there read alternatively wit& 
the text in. the manner as is above described J Elias Levita tells us, 
who of all the Jews, that have handled this argument, hath wrilten 
the most accurately and fully of it. For he saith, "that the Jews 
holding themselves obliged every week in their synagogues to read 
twice that Parashah or section of the law, which was the lesson of 
the week (that is in the Hebrew original first, and theu in the Chaldee 
interpretation after it) made use of the Targum of Onkelos for this 
purpose ; and that this was their usage even down to his time (which 
was If about the first part of the sixteenth century.) And that tor this 
reason, though till the art of printing was invented there were of the 
other Targums scarce above one or two of a sort to be found in a whole 
country ; yet then the Targum of Onkelos was every where among them/* 
Some say this Onkelos was a proselyte, and hold him to have been the 
same with Akilas, another proselyte, who is quoted in || Berishith 
Rabba to have written a Targum ; and others, that he was the same 
with Aquila of Pontus, who composed one of the Greek versions of the 
holy Scripture, which was in Origei/s Octapla, as if the Akilas 
mentioned in Berishith Rabba, and Aquila of Pontus, were two distinct 
persons. For the setting of all this at rights it is to be observed, 
I. That the Akilas, whose Targum is quoted in Berishith Rabba, and 
elsewhere from it fcy the Rabbins, can be none other than Aquila of 
Pontus. For the name is the same, 'A/cvkas in Greek, and Akilas in 
Hebrew ; the time in which they are said to live, is also the same, that 
is about the year of Christ one hundred and thirty ; and both are said 
to be proselytes ; and these three characters joined together sufficiently 
prove them to be both the same person. 2. That this Akilas could 
not be Onkelos. For not only the names are different, and the times 
in which they lived different, but also the Targums, which they are said 
to have written. For Onkelos wrote on the law, but the Targum of 
Akilas, which is quoted in Berishith Rabba, is on the Prophets, and the 
Hagiographa. 3. That the Targum of Akilas quoted by the author of 
Berishith Rabba, and other Rabbins from him, is not a Chaldee Targum, 
but the Greek version or Targum made by Aquila of Pontus. For 
although the word Targum be restrained by its most common use 
among the Jews to the Chaldee versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, yet 



X In Metliurgeman, i. e. Lexico Chaldaico sic dicto. Verba ejus in prsefatione 
ad illud Lexicon sunt hcec sequentia. Antequam inveniretur ars typographica 
non extabant Targum prophetarum et hagiograyhorum, nisi vel unum in provincia, 
vel ad summum duo in universo climate. Propterea nee quisquam erat qui ea 
curaret. At Targum Onkelosi semper repcrtum est ■ affatim r et hoc ideo, quia 
nos obligati sumus, ut legamus quavis septimana parasham bis, i. e. seme! in 
textu Hebraeo, et semel in Targum. 

H Some of his books were published anno 151 7, and some anno 1539. 

il Berishith Rabba is an old Rabbinical commentary on the book of Genesis. 



5. Taegums. xliii 

in its general signification it takes in any translation from one language 
to another, whatsoever those languages may be; and that therefore 
there was never any such Chaldee Targum, as is supposed to be quoted 
by the author of Berishith Rabba, or any such person as Akilas a 
proselyte distinct from Aquila of Pontus to be the author of it ; but 
that the Targum so quoted was the Greek Targum, or Greek version 
of the Hebrew Scriptures made by the said Aquila of Pontus, of which 
I have above given a full accouut. 4. That the representing of Onkelos 
to have been a proselyte, seems to have proceeded from the errour of 
taking liim to have been the same with Aquila of Pontus, who was 
indeed a Jewish Proselyte. For having from being an heathen 
embraced the Christian religion, he apostatised from it to the Jews. 
The excellency and accuracy of OnkeWs Targum sufficiently prove 
him to have been a native Jew. For without being bred up from his 
birth in the Jewish religion and learning, and long exercised in all the 
rites and doctrines thereof, and being also thoroughly skill' d in both 
the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, as far as a native Jew could be, 
he can scarce be thought thoroughly adequate to that work, which he 
performed. 

The next Targum to that of Onkelos is the Targum of Jonathan Ben 
Uz ziel on the prophets, which is next it also in the purity of its style, 
but is not like it in the manner of its composure. For whereas the 
Targum of Onkelos is a strict version, rendering the Hebrew text word 
for word, Jonathan takes on him the liberty of a paraphrast by 
enlargements and additions to the text. For therein are inserted 
several stories, and also several glosses of his own, which do not much 
commend the work ; and more of this is to be found in that part which 
is on the later prophets, than in that which is on the former. For in 
that latter part he is more lax and paraph rastical, and less accurate and 
clear, than in the other. The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and 
Kings are called the former prophets, and the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets the latter. The § Jews speak 
highly of this Jonathan. For they do not only give him the first place 
of emiuency among all the disciples of Hillel, but equal him even to 
Moses himself, and tell many miraculous things of him, which they say- 
happened while he was employed in this work. As, that nothing was 
permitted to give him any disturbance herein. That if any bird happened 
to flee over him, or any fly to light upon his paper, while he was 
writing this Targum, they were immediately burnt uj by fire from 
heaven without any hurt done either to his person or his paper. And they 
tell us also, that on his attempting to write aTargum upon the Hagiographa 

§ Zacutus in Juchasin. Gedaliah in Shalsheleth Haccabbala, David Ganz in 
Zemach David. Talmud in Bava Bathra cap. 8, et in Succa, et in Megilla. 
Videas etiam Buxtorfium de abbreviaturis p. 104, et 105. et in praefatione ad 
lexicon Chaldaicum. Sckickardum in Bechinatb Happcrushim, aliosque. 



xliv Appendix. 

after his having finished that on the law, he was hindered by a voice 
from heaven, which forbad him to proceed in that work, giving this 
reason for it, because therein (that is in the Hagiographa) was contained 
the end of the Messiah, which some Christians laying hold of against the 
Jews by interpreting it of the death of Christ predicted in the prophesies 
of Daniel (which they place among the * Hagiographa) some of the 
latter Jews have taken upon them to alter that passage, for fear this 
fabulous story should hurt their cause. Many other fables the Jewish 
writers tell us of this Jonathan and his Targum, which I think not 
proper to trouble the reader with. 

The third Targum in the order above-mentioned is that on the Law, 
which is ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel. But that it is none of his 
is sufficiently proved by the style, which is wholly different from that, 
wherein is written the true Targum of Jonathan (that upon the 
Prophets, which all allow to have been his) as will thoroughly 
appear to such as shall thoroughly compare them together; and 
besides its enlargements in the paraphrastical way by glosses, fables, 
prolix explications, and other additions are much beyond what we find 
practised by Jonathan in that Targum, which is truly his. But that 
which thoroughly cuts the throat of this pretence is, that there are 
several things mentioned in this Targum, which had no being, or at 
least no name, till after Jonathan's time. For therein is mention 
madef of the six orders or books of the Mishnah; but they could 
have no being till the Mishna was made by R. Judah near two hundred 
years after Jonathan's time ; and therein we also find mention made J 
of Constantinople and If Lombardy, whereas there was no such city as 
Constantinople, nor any country called by the name of Lombardy 
till several hundred years after the time, wherein Jonathan flourished. 
Who was the true author of this Targum, or when it was composed, is 
utterly unknown. It seems long to have lain in obscurity among the 
Jews themselves. Eor Elias Levita, who wrote most fully of the 
Chaldee paraphrases, knew nothing of this paraphrase, for he says 
nothing of it, though he tells us of all the rest ; neither was it taken 
notice of till published in print at Venice about an hundred and fifty 
years since ; and the name of Jonathan, it's probable, was for no other 
reason then put to it, but to give it the more credit, and the better to 
recommend it by that specious title to the buyer. Most of those 
prophecies which are in the Pentateuch concerning the Messiah, being 
in this Targum interpreted in the Christian way, some Christians for this 
reason would maintain it to be the genuine work of the author, whose 
name it bears ; and to make this out assert it to be as ancient as that 



* That the Jews allow not Daniel a place among the prophets, and for what 
reason, hath been above shewn, part I, book 3, under the year 534. 

f Exod. xxvi. 9. X Num. xxiv. 19. U Num. xxiy. 24. 



5. Targum s. xlv 

author, and that therefore it might according to its title be truly his ; 
and their argument for it is, that it is quoted by St Paul, and that 
therefore it must be composed before his time ; and the age before his 
time was that, in which Jonathan Ben Uzziel lived. For whereas 
St Paul in his second epistle to Timothy, iii, 8, makes mention of 
Jannes and Jambres as the names of those Egyptian magicians, who 
withstood Moses in the presence of Pharaoh (Exodus vii, 2.), they 
would have it believed, that Paul had those names from this Targum 
on the law which is ascribed to Jonathan ; and that therefore it was 
composed before St Paul wrote that epistle to Timothy. It's trne the 
names of Jannes and Jambres are twice made mention of in this Targum 
(Exodus i, 15, and vii, 2,) but it doth not follow, that St Paul had 
them from this Targum, and that therefore the author of this Targum 
was ancienter than St Paul, any more than it doth, that he had them 
from Pliny or Numenius, and that therefore these two heathen 
philosophers were, contrary to all the faith of history, ancienter than 
this apostle. Eor both these authors make mention of those Egyptian 
magicians in the time of Moses with this only variation, that instead of 
Jannes and Jambres Pliny writes their names Jamnes and Jotapes. 
The true answer hereto is, that as the sacred penmen of the new 
Testament make mention of several things which they had only from 
the current tradition of the times in which they lived, so this of Jannes 
and Jambres was of that sort. These names either by oral tradition, 
or rather by some written records of history, being preserved among the 
Jews, Paul from thence had them. And an account of these persons 
having been by the said names propagated by the Jews to the heathens, 
among whom they were dispersed, it came this way to the knowledge of 
Pliny and Numenius, the first of which lived in the first century 
of Christ, and the other in the beginning of the third. They that 
would know, what were the traditions of the Jews concerning these two 
magicians, may cousult Buxtorf s Rabbinical Lexicon, p. 945, 946, and 
947, for there they will find a full account of all that is said of them in 
the Talmud, and other Eabbinical writings, which being long and 
wholly fabulous, I avoid here troubling the reader with it. 

The fourth Targum is on the law, written by an unknown hand. 
For no one pretends to tell us, who the author of it was, or when it was 
composed. It is called the Jerusalem Targum ; and seems to have 
that name for the same reason for which the Jerusalem Talmud is 
so called, that is because it is written in the Jerusalem dialect. Eor 
there were || three different dialects of the Chaldsean or Assyrian 
language. The first was that, which was spoken at Babylon the 
metropolis of the Assyrian empire, an example of this in its greatest 



|| Videas Waltoni prolegom. xiii, ad biblia polyglot, et Georgii Amyfae 
praelud. gram. Syr. 



xlvi Appendix. 

purity we have in Daniel and Ezra, and the style of the Babylonish 
Gemara may be reckoned its highest corruption. The second dialect 
of this language was the Commagenian or Antiochian, which was spoken 
in Coinmagene, Antioch, and the rest of Syria ; and in this dialect 
were written the versions of the Holy Scriptures, and the liturgies, which 
were in use among the Syrian and Assyrian Christians, and are still 
used by them, especially by the Maronites, a people inhabiting mount 
Libauus, where the Syriac still lives among them as a vulgar language. 
The third dialect was the Jerusalem dialect, thai; which was spoken by 
the Jews after their return from Babylon. The Babylonian and J erusalem 
dialects were written in the same character, but the Antiochian in a 
different, that w T hich we call the Syriac. And for the sake of this 
different character is that dialect reckoned a different language, which 
we call the Syriac, § whereas in truth the Syriac and the Chaldee are 
one and the same language, in different characters, and differing a 
little only in dialect. As all these three dialects were made by so 
many several degeneracies from the old Assyrian language, which was 
anciently spoken in .Nineveh and Babylon, so they all with time 
degenerated from what they at first were. The purest style which we 
have of the Jerusalem dialect, is in the Targums first of Onkelos on the 
law, and next of Jonathan on the prophets. For in them the Chaldee 
is without any mixture of words from any other language, saving from 
the Hebrew only. This mixture of Hebrew words with the Chaldee 
was that only, which first made the Jerusalem dialect to differ from 
the Babylonian. For though the Jews on their return from Babylon 
brought back with them the Chaldee language, and made it their vulgar 
tongue, yet the Hebrew was still the language of the Church, and 
the language of all those that were bred up in learning for its service ; 
and therefore many of its words crept into the Chaldee, which was 
vulgarly spoken by them, and this mixture constituted the Jerusalem 
dialect of the Chaldee tongue ; and as long as it continued with this 
mixture only, it was the Jerusalem dialect in its best purity. But 
in process of time the mixture of the Jews with other nations, especially 
after our Saviour's time, brought in the mixture of many exotic words 
from the Latin, Greek, Arabian, Persian, and other languages, and 
thereby so far corrupted their former speech, that it made it almost 
another language. And a view of this corrupt state of it we have 
in the Jerusalem Talmud, the Jerusalem Targum, and in all other 
Targums, excepting those of Onkelos on the law, and Jonathan on the 
prophets. For all these are written in this corrupt style of the 
Jerusalem dialect, and those Targums are much more so than the 
Jerusalem Talmud, which proves them all (except the two above 



§ Videas praefationeui Ludovici de Dieu ad Grammaticam Linguarum Orien- 
talium. 



5. Targums. xlvii 

excepted) to have been written after that Talmud. This Jerusalem 
Targum is not a continued paraphrase, as a)l the rest are, but only 
upon some parts here and there, as the author thought the text most 
wanted an explication. For sometimes it is. only upon one verse, 
sometimes only upon a piece of verse, and sometimes upon several verses 
together, and sometimes it skips over whole chapters. In many places 
it writes word ior word from the Targum said to be Jonathan's on the 
law, which made * Drusius think they were both the same. There are 
several things in this Jerusalem Targum, which are in the same words 
delivered in the new Testament by Christ and his apostles. As for 
example, Luke vi, 38, Christ saith With the same measure that ye mete 
withal, it shall be measured to you again. The same is in this Targum, 
Gen. xxxviii, 26. In the Revelations xx, 6. 14. there is mention 
of the first and second death, the same distinction is in this Targum, 
Deuteron. xxxiii. 6. In the Revelations v. 10, the saints are said to be 
made unto our God, Kings and Priests ; the same is said in this 
Targum, Exodus xix. 6. In the gospel of St. Matthew vi. 9. our 
Saviour teacheth us to say, Our "Father which art in Heaven ; the same 
expression is in this Targum, Deut. xxxii. 6. Hence some would infer 
the antiquity of this Targum, as if it had been written before our 
Saviour's time, and that he and his apostles had these and like other 
expressions from it ; and others will have it, that the Author of 
this Targum had them from the new Testament. But neither of these 
seems likely ; not the first, because the style of this Targum being 
more impure and corrupt, than that of the Jerusalem Talmud, this 
proves it to have been composed after that Talmud, which had no being 
till above three hundred years after Christ; and not the second, 
because the Jews had that detestation of all contained in the new 
Testament, that we may be well assured, they would borrow nothing 
from thence. The truth of the matter most probably is, these were 
sayings and phraseologies, which had obtained among the Jews in our 
Saviour's time, and continued among them long after, and hence our 
Saviour and his apostles, and afterward the author of this Targum had 
them, as from the same fountain. 

The fifth Targum, which is that on the Megilloth , the sixth which 
is the second Targum on Esther; and the seventh, which is that on 
Job, the Psalms and the Proverbs, are all written in the corruptest 
Chaldee of the Jerusalem Dialect. Of the two former no author is 
named ; but the author of the third they say was Joseph the one-eyed, 
bat who this Joseph was, or when he lived, is not said; and some 
of them t tell us the author of this Targum is as much unknown, as of 
the other two. The second Targum on Esther is twice as large as the 



* Ad ditficilia Loca, Num. cap. 25. 
f R. Azarias in Meor Enaim, Elias Levita, aliique. 



xlviii Appendix. 

first, and seems to have been written the last of all those Targums, by 
reason of the barbarity of its style. That on the Megilloth, (part of 
which is the first Targnm on Esther) makes mention of the * Mishnah 
and the Talmud with the explication ; if thereby be meant the Baby- 
lonish Talmud, as undoubtedly it is, this Targum must have been written 
after that Talmud, that is after the year of Christ 500. For this is the 
earliest time which is assigned for the composure of the Babylonish 
Talmud. 

The eighth and last of these Targums in the order I have above- 
mentioned them is that on the two books of the Chronicles, which is 
the last that hath been published. For it was not known of till the 
year 1680, t when Beckius from an old manuscript first published at 
Augsburg in Germany that part of it, which is on the first book ; and 
three years after he published at the same place the other part also, that 
which is on the second book. Till then all, that have written of the 
Chaldee Paraphrases, have given us to understand, as if there had never 
been any Targum at all written upon these books. But only Walton J 
tells us, he had heard, that there w r as in the publick library in Cam- 
bridge a manuscript Targum on the Chronicles, but had no notice of it 
till his Polyglot was finished, and therefore never examined it. I find 
there is % in that library among Erpenius's books bought by the Duke 
of Buckingham, and given to that university, a manuscript Hebrew 
bible in three volumes, which hath a Chaldee Targum on the Chronicles 
as far as the sixth verse of the 22nd Chapter of the first book. But it 
is no continued Targum, for it contains no more than some short 
glosses added here and there in the margin. This manuscript was 
written in the year of Christ 1347, as appears by a note at the end of 
it, but when or by whon the marginal Chaldee Gloss therein was com- 
posed is not said. 

That the Targums of Onkelos on the law, and Jonathan on the pro- 
phets, are as ancient as our Saviour's time, if not ancienter, is the gene- 
ral opinion of both Jews and Christians ; || the Jewish Historians posi- 
tively say it. For they tell us that Jonathan was the most eminent of 
all the scholars of Hillel, § who died about the time that our Saviour 
was born, and that Onkelos was contemporary with Gamaliel the elder 
(the same that was St Paul's master) as is above-mentioned. For 
altho' the Jewish writers are very wretched historians, and often give 
us gross fables instead of true narratives, yet whenever they do so 

* Cant. i. 2. f Leusdeni Philologus mixtus dissertatione 5ta, §. 5. 

t Prolegom. ad Biblia Polyglotta cap. 12. Sect. 15. If Catalogus Libro- 

rum Manuscriptorum Anglise et Hyberniae Tom. 1. Part 3. p. 174. Num. 
248k || Z icutus, Gedrdias, David Ganz, Abraham Levita, aliique. § It 

is generally said of Hillel by the Jewish writers, that he entered on his President- 
ship of the Great Sanhedrim about an hundred years before the destruction of 
Jerusalem. 



5. Targtjms. xlix 

there is either something internal in the matter related,, or else external 
to it from other evidences, that convict them of the falsity; but where 
there is nothing of this, the testimony of the historian is to stand good 
in that, which he relates of the affairs of his own country or people. 
And therefore there being nothing concerning those two Targums, 
which can be alleged either from what is contained in tbem, or from 
any external evidence to contradict what the Jewish historians tell 
us of their antiquity, I reckon their testimony is to stand good 
concerning this matter. And this testimony is strongly corroborated 
by the style, in which they are penned. For it being the purest, 
and the best of all, that is written in the Jerusalem dialect, and 
without the mixture of those many exotic words, which the Jews of 
Jerusalem and Judeea afterwards took into it from the Greek, Latin, and 
other knguages, this proves them to have been written before those 
Jews had that common converse with those nations, from whom these 
words were borrowed, and especially before Jerusalem and Judsea were 
made a province of the Eoman empire. For altho' the Jews of the 
dispersions had long before conversed with those nations, and learned 
their languages, yet this did not affect the Jews of Jerusalem and Judeea^ 
but they still retained their vulgar tongue in the same dialect, in which 
it had been formed after their return from Babylon, till Pompey had 
subjected them to the Eoman yoke; but after that Greeks, Eomans, 
and Italians, and other subjects of the Eoman empire, either as soldiers 
or civil officers, or on other occasions coming into that country, and 
there mixing themselves among them, from that time they first began 
to borrow from them those words, which corrupted their language. 
And therefore since these Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan are the 
clearest of this corruption of all that we have in the Jerusalem dialect, 
this may assuredly convince us, that they were written before this 
corruption had obtained any prevalency among that people. And for 
this reason I reckon them both to have been composed before our 
Saviour's time, and the Targums of Onkelos to be the ancienter of the 
two, because it is the purer, though the other comes very little behind 
it herein, which evidently shews it to have been written very soon after 
it. The Jews speak very magnificent things of Jonathan, but say little 
of Onkelos, though they manifestly prefer the Targum of Onkelos 
before that of the other, as indeed it deserves they should, it being by 
much the more exact of the two ; the reason of this is, they all hold 
Jonathan to have been a natural Jew ; but the general vogue among 
them being, that Onkelos was a proselyte, and sister's son to Titus, who 
destroyed Jerusalem, for both these reasons, though both are gross 
mistakes, they have lesser regard to his memory than to that of the 
other, tho' they have the greater for his work. 

The only thing that can be alledged against the antiquity of these 
two Targums, is, that neither Origen, nor Epiphanius, nor Jerom, nor 



1 Appendix. 

any of the ancient fathers of the Christian church make any mention of 
them. These three which I have named, were well skillM in the Jewish 
learning, and therefore it is thought, they could not have avoided 
taking some notice of them, had they been extant in their time, espe- 
cially not Jerom, who lived in Judsea a great part of his life, and there 
conversed with the learnedest rabbies of that sect ; and was very inquisi- 
tive after all that was to be learned from them for his better understand- 
ing of the Hebrew Scriptures, and yet in all his writings we find no 
mention of any Targum or Chaldee paraphrase, nor doth he make use of 
any such in any of his commentaries, in which they would have been 
very useful unto him; and therefore from hence they conclude, that 
certainly they were not in being in his time. But this being a negative 
argument it proves nothing. Eor there might be many reasons, which 
might hinder Jerom from knowing any thing of them, though in common 
use among the Jews of his time. For first, though Jerom understood 
Hebrew well, it was late e'er he studied the Chaldee, and therefore it 
was with difficulty that he attained to any knowledge in it,* of which 
he himself complains ; and therefore might not be sufficiently skill' d to 
read those Targums, had he known any thing of them. But 2dly, it is 
most probable, that he knew nothing of them. For the Jews were in 
those times very backward in communicating any of their books or their 
knowledge to the Christians ; and therefore tho' Jerom f got some of 
their rabbies to help him in his studies about the Hebrew scriptures, yet 
he could not have them for this purpose without bribing them to it with 
great sums. And what assistance they gave him herein was contrary 
to the established rules and orders then made and received among that 
people, and therefore when these Rabbi's came to Jerom to give him 
that assistance in his Hebrew studies, which he hired them for, they 
did it by stealth, J coming to hiin only by night, as Nicodemus did 
unto Christ, for fear of offending the rest of their brethren. And this 
being at that time the humour of those people, we may hence conclude, 
that those rabbi's served Jerom very poorly in the matter he 
hired them for, and communicated nothing further to him, than they 
saw needs they must to earn his money. And 3dly, as to the other 
fathers, none of them understood the Chaldee tongue; and besides, 
there was in their time such an aversion and bitter enmity between the 
Christians and the Jews, as hindered all manner of converse between 
them, so that neither would willingly communicate any thing to each 
other; and no wonder then that in those days these Targums were 
concealed from all Christians, as being doubly locked up from them, 



* In praefatione ad Danielem. f Hieronymus in Epistola ad Pamma- 

chium G5. In praefatione in Librum Paralipomenon, & in praefatione ad 
librum Job. 



5. Targums li 

that is not only by the language in which they were written, but also 
by the malice and perverseness of the Jews, who had the keeping of 
them. But 4thly, besides their malice and perverseness, they had 
also some very good reasons to be cautious as to this matter. For 
there being many prophecies of the old Testament concerning the 
Messiah, explained in these Targums in the same manner as we 
Christians do, it behoved those of that sect not to communicate them 
to any Christians, lest thereby they should give them an advantage 
for the turning of their own artillery against them, and the cutting 
of the very throat of their cause with their own weapons. And for this 
reason it happened, that it was much above a thousand years after 
Christ, e'er Christians knew any thing of those Targums, and scarce 
three centuries have passed since they have become common among us ; 
and therefore it is not to be wondered at, that the ancientest fathers of 
the Christian church knew nothing of them. And all this put together 
I think may be sufficient to convince any one, that these Targums may 
be as ancient as is said, though neither Jerom nor any of the ancient 
fathers of the Christian church say any thing of them, and that their 
silence herein can be no argument to the contrary. 

As to all the other Targums besides these two Onkelos on the law 
and Jonathan on the prophets, they are all most certainly of a much 
later date. This is above shewn of some of them from the matters 
therein contained, but the style in which they are written proves it of all 
of them. "For it being in every one of them more barbarous and impure, 
and much more corrupted with exotic words and grammatical irregula- 
rities, than that of the Jerusalem Talmud, this shews them to have been 
written after the composure of that Talmud, that is after the beginning of 
the fourth century after Christ, It is also to be observed of these later 
Targums, that they abound much with Talmudic fables; if these were 
taken out of the Babylonish Talmud, this will bring down their date 
much lower, and prove them to have been written after that Talmud 
also, as well as after the other, that is after the beginning of the sixth 
centnry after Christ. This hath been already proved of the Targum on 
the Megilloth, which is one of them that 1 now treat of in this para- 
graph, and possibly it may be true of some of the rest also. By reason 
of the barbarity of the style in which these later Targums are written, 
and the great mixture of exotic words, with which they abound, they 
are badly understood among the Jews even by the most learned of their 
Rabbies and therefore are not much regarded by them. But of late 
Cohen De Lara a Jew of Hamburgh, and the most learned of that sect, 
which the last century hath produced, hath published a Lexicon for 
their help, in which he expounds all the Chaldee, Syriae, Arabic, Persian, 
Turkish, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Gallic, German, 
Saxon, Dutch, and English words, which any where occur in their 
Talmudic and Rabbinical writings. This book was a work of 40 years' 



Hi Appendix. 

labour and study, and first published at Hamburgh Anno Dom. 1668, 
where the author some years after died. 

The Targum of Oukelos and Jonathan are in so great esteem among 
the Jews, that they hold them to be of the same authority with the 
original sacred text ; and for the support of this opinion they feign 
them to have come from mount Sinai in the same manner, as they say 
their oral law did, and tell us the same story of their original, that is, 
that God did there deliver them to Moses, and that they from him 
were delivered down In a like chain of traditional descent from one 
generation to another through the hands of the prophets, and other 
holy men, till at length they were this way received * by Onkelos and 
Jonathan, and that all that they did was only to put them into writing. 
This shews the high opinion and esteem which they have of them ; but 
the true reason of it, and of their equalling them with the text, was 
that they were every Sabbathday read in their synagogues in the same 
manner as the original sacred word it self, of which they were versions. 
It hath been above already shewn, that after the Chaldee became the 
vulgar tongue of the Jews, the weekly lessons out of the law and 
the prophets in their synagogues having been first read in Hebrew were 
by an interpreter standing by the reader rendered into Chaldee. This 
continued for some time ; but afterwards when Targums were made, 
the interpretation was read out of thorn without any more employing 
interpreters for this purpose ; that is, the readers did first read a verse 
out of the sacred Hebrew text, and then the same again out of the 
Chaldee Targum, and so went on from verse to verse till they had read 
out the whole lesson ; and the Targums of Onkelos on the law, 
and Jonathan en the prophets, having obtained an approbation beyond 
all the other Targums en these scriptures, they at length were alone 
used in this service. And this use of them was retained in their 
synagogues even down to late times, and in places where the Chaldee 
was among the people as much an unknown language as the Hebrew. 
Tor Elias Levita, who lived about two hundred years since f tells us, 
that they were thus used in his time in Germany, and elsewhere ; that 
is that they were read in their synagogues after the Hebrew text in the 
same manner as I have described ; and agreeable to this purpose, 
though only for private use, they had some of their Bibles written out 
in Hebrew and Chaldee together, that is each verse first in Hebrew, and 
then the same verse next in Chaldee, and thus from verse to verse in 
the same manner through the whole volume. In these Bibles 
the Targum of Onkelos was the Chaldee version for the law, and that of 
Jonathan for the prophets, and for the Hagiographa the other Targums, 
that were written on them. One of these Bibles thus written J Buxtorf 



* Talmud in Tractatu Megilla, cap. I, Zacutus m Juchasin. 

f In prsefatione ad Methurgeman. X In Epistola ad Hottingerum. 



5. Taegums. liii 

tells us he had seen at Strasburg, and % Walton acquaints us, that 
he had the perusal of two others of the same sort, one in the publick 
library of the church of Westminster, and the other in the private 
study of Mr Thomas Gataker. 

Whether the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan were received 
for this use so early, as in our Saviour's time, I cannot say ; but this 
seems certain, if not these particular Targums, yet some others then 
were in hands for the instruction of the people, and were read among 
them in private as well as in public for this purpose ; and that they had 
such not only on the law and the prophets, but also on all the other 
Hebrew scriptures. Tor as I have said before it was never a usage 
among the Jews to lock, up the holy scriptures, or any part of them, 
from the people in a language unknown to them. For when dispersed 
among the Greeks they had them in Greek, and where the Chaldee was 
the vulgar language, they had them in Chaldee. And when || Christ 
was called out to read the second lesson in the synagogue of Nazareth, 
of which he w^as a member, he seems to have read it out of a Targum. 
For the words then read by him out of Isaiah lxi, 1, as recited by 
St Luke iv, 18, do not exactly agree either with the Hebrew original, 
or with the Septuagint version in that place, and therefore it seems 
most likely, that they were read out of some Chaldee Targum, which 
was made use of in that Synagogue. And when he cried out upon the 
cross in the words of the Psalmist, Psalm xxii, 1 , Eli, Eli, lama sabach- 
thani, i. e. my God my God why hast thou forsaken me, Matth. xxvii, 
46, he quoted them not out of the Hebrew text, but out of the Chaldee 
Paraphrase : for in the Hebrew text it is Eli Eli lamah Azabtani, and 
the word Sabachthani is no where to be found, but in the Chaldee 
tongue. 

Those Targums are the ancientest "Books the Jews have next the 
Hebrew Scriptures. This is certain of the Targums of Onkelos on the 
law, and of Jonathan on the Prophets; and although the others are of 
a later date, yet they were for the most part transcribed and composed 
out of other ancient Glosses and Targums, wmich were in u^e long be- 
fore. Such I have shewn they had soon after the time of Ezra; but 
these being written in the pure Jerusalem dialect of the Chaldee lan- 
guage must in those times, in which the language of the Jerusalem Tal- 
mud, and of the later Targums was spoken, be as much an unknown 
language to the people, as formerly the Hebrew was to them on their 
return from the Babylonish Captivity. And therefore they seem to have 
been composed in this corrupted style of that dialect of purpose for 
their help ; and from hence it is, that I take them to be no other, than 



t In Prolegom. ad Biblia Polyglotta, cap. 12. Sect. 6. 
|| Lukeiv, 16, 17, 



Hv Appendix. 

as Targums of the old Targums, that is the old Targums, which were 
in use before the time of Onkelos and Jonathan, translated and written 
over again from the purer Jerusalem dialect (which was in the time of the 
composure of those later Targums no longer understood by the people) 
into that which they then did understand, that is, that corrupt language of 
the Jerusalem Chaldee dialect, in which they were composed. And that 
therefore these old Targums with the addition of some rabbinical fables 
and Rabbinical fooleries, which are interspersed in them, are the whole of 
their contexture, and that all of them, that is all the later Targums (I mean 
all excepting Onkelos on the law, and Jonathan on the prophets) were 
composed within the compass of one and the same age. The uniformity 
of their style plainly proves this, and the corruptness of it proves that it 
was after the composure of the Jerusalem Talmud, as hath been already 
shewn; but in what age it was after that composure is uncertain. It 
seems most probable to me, that it was in that* in which the Babylo- 
nish Talmud was compiled, and that some of them were written a little 
before, and some of them a little after the publication of it. For that 
Talmud making mention of some of them proves these to have been 
written before it, and some of them making mention of that Talmud 
prove these to have been written after it. 

They are all of them of great use for the better understanding not 
only of the Old Testament on which they are written, but also of the 
New. As to the Old Testament they vindicate the genuineness of the 
present Hebrew text by proving it the same that was in use, when these 
Targums were made, contrary to the opinion of those, who think the 
Jews corrupted it after our Saviour's time. They help to explain many 
w 7 ords and phrases in the Hebrew original, for the meaning whereof we 
should otherwise have been at a loss ; and they hand down to us many 
of the ancient oustoms and usages of the Jews, which much help to the 
illustrating those Scriptures, on which they are written. And some of 
these with the phraseologies, idioms, and peculiar forms of speech, 
which we find in them, do in many instances help as much for the illus- 
trating and better understanding of the New Testament as of the Old. 
Tor the Jerusalem Chaldee dialect, in which they are written, being the 
same, which was the vulgar language of the Jews in our Saviour's time, 
many of its idioms, - phraseologies, and forms of speech, which from 
hence came into the writings of the New Testament, are found in these 
Targums, and from thence are best to be illustrated and explained. 
The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan must certainly be allowed to be 
useful for this purpose, as being written just before the time of our 
Saviour; and although the others were much later, and written in a cor- 
rupted style much differing from that of the other, yet the same idioms, 



* The Babylonish Talmud was composed about the beginning of the 6th Cen- 
tury after Christ. 



FEB 141949 



5. Targums. Iv 

phrases, and forms of speech still remaining, they serve for this use as 
well as the other, especially where transcribed from other ancienter Tar- 
gums, as I suppose they mostly were. 

They also very much serve the Christian cause against the Jews, by 
interpreting many of the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testa- 
ment in the same manner as the Christians do. I shall here instance 
in some of them 

The account which Dr Prideaux gives of these texts is of no impor- 
tance to our present subject : the texts are these : 

Gen. iii, 15. Gen. xlix, 10. Numb, xxiv, 17. Isaiah ix, 6, 7. 
Isaiah xi. Isaiah Hi, and liii. Micah v. 2. Psalm ii. Psalm xlv. 
Psalm lxxii. 




^ °*f 






v> o v * o 



O- 







O-, * 





^# 



„4 O 



_ S 



^ "«> 






$5. <F 










C -f 



^,# ^ s\^ 







^ 






^ 9* 





















o, ^r^fs^ <fr 



& ^ 




.v ^ 




£ °^ 












^^•^••'^"•,^-'> i :.:-:..<---> 








S ^ < 



s 



o 7 ^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proc 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologi 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVAT 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



% 



, 












0° *' 

V 



^.d* 









cS 






^ 






c -J 




%> 




^ 



£> 





